- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:00:17 -0700
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, <jonas@rit.se>, <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> > Perhaps, but how is the RDF use of triples any different from Drew's URF? > I don't see much difference, if any. Hopefully not by much: like a rose: (a triple) isa triple; isa triple; isa triple ..... But seriously the biggest distinction would be that one gets zillions of references to RDF at google and for the life of me I can't find a single URL to URF. There is power in collective agreement ... that power is what we are talking about. Anybody can come up with a good system, when we agree to use the same system, that is when we stop fragmenting. > > > The point is that no one is arguing against using Unicode or RDF as a > > > coding scheme; the argument is against using either as a formal > > > language. If RDF is simply an encoding scheme, then we can put it on > > > the back burner and focus on the language actually being encoded. > > > If we view it *as a formal language*, then its flaws loom large. It > > > lacks many key features, including implication and bound variables. > > > > Did I miss something here? I thought that the RDF triples model *was* only > > a coding scheme and has never purported to be a *formal language*. > > A coding scheme is a formal language. Hmm.. that would seem to contradict Drew's paragraph. > > But > > shouldn't we formally agree that triples *are* the building blocks of any > > next level "formal language" before we move on? Continually bickering about > > that will mean that collectively our projects will fragment. > > Sure, why not. That would be OK for me (but certainly not ideal). :)))) > But RDF uses triples for lots more than just a building block of the next > layer. RDF provides representational import for all triples that it sees. > Further, the approved mechanism for the next level is not to implement it > on top of RDF, but instead to extend RDF. The RDF-imposed meaning for all Specifically what "representational import" does RDF specify, that you cannot live with ? Bear in mind that I said RDF, not RDFS. Seth
Received on Monday, 2 April 2001 15:03:26 UTC