- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:54:55 -0400 (EDT)
- To: sandro@w3.org
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> Subject: Re: Layering LX (or FOL) on RDF Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:43:55 -0400 > > If you forbid self-reference, then it is possible. If you don't correctly > > capture FOL entailment, then it is possible. If you extend the syntax of > > RDF, then it is possible. If you don't use RDF semantics for RDF triples, > > then it is possible. > > > > What it depends on is whether you think any of these violates what a > > same-syntax semantic extension of RDF is. > > So you agree that forbidding self-reference (in the sense discussed > earlier in this thread) is enough, but you think that doing so > violates some essential part of RDF? Looking back through the thread I can't find a reference to forbidding self-referential formulae, except where I state it. How do you forbid self-referential statements? > I've had the impression that the > RDF Core WG is attached to reification for issues like provenance > (using RDF to record the sources of RDF information), but I'd be > rather surprised if they were attached to self-referencing sentences. Well, how does one forbid self-referencing sentences. To do so, one would have to say something like _:s rdf:type rdf:Statement . _:s rdf:subject _:s . is not an RDF graph. > I imagine the only reason they allow them is because (1) it's not a > problem in their negation-free world, and (2) it's more complicated to > disallow them. I would instead say that it is impossible *in RDF* to disallow them. > To bring this full circle (this thread started with Sean's document), > I'm finishing up a modifation to cwm which will let it translate N3 to > RDF triples using the LX vocabulary. That will demonstrate that N3, > while not 1-1 equivalent to RDF, is equivalent to RDF + some > vocabulary. This will be a nice trick. How are you going to get the *entire* meaning of this vocabulary into RDF (without extending the semantics of RDF)? > -- sandro peter
Received on Tuesday, 27 August 2002 11:55:21 UTC