- From: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 08:49:18 -0500 (EST)
- To: seth@robustai.net
- CC: drew.mcdermott@yale.edu, connolly@w3.org, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> I don't think it needs to look
> radically different from RDF, but it does need to give up the graph
> model.
Why? I can think of several ways to represent logical statements in RDF
and all of them need the graph model. A logical statement is a tree, and a
tree is a special case of a labeled directed graph.
This is a very puzzling view. If this is the way we are supposed to
think of it, then RDF becomes completely unimportant. The relation
between RDF and the language we actually care about is about the same
as the relation between linked lists and predicate calculus. And yet
the discussion seems to constantly assume that RDF places actual
constraints on the language somehow. If it doesn't, then what is the
language exactly? If the answer is "DAML," then I don't think I've
seen an actual DAML formula yet. I've seen DAML *ontology* and I've
seen RDF *content* (using symbols defined in DAML), but I haven't seen
*DAML content,* and I don't believe anyone has suggested what it would
look like.
-- Drew McDermott
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2000 08:49:20 UTC