- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 16:22:11 -0400
- To: seth@robustai.net
- Cc: drew.mcdermott@yale.edu, jonas@rit.se, phayes@ai.uwf.edu, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
From: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net> Subject: Re: Can we agree on triples ? Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:00:17 -0700 > From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> > > > > 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. > > Specifically what "representational import" does RDF specify, that you > cannot live with ? Bear in mind that I said RDF, not RDFS. > > Seth Precisely the import that is attached to the extension triples. For example, if you represent quantification using "http://www.bar.com/logic#forall", you could end up with triples of the form {http://www.bar.com/logic#forall,a,b} which should not result in the assertion that there is some forall relationship between the representation of the variable a and the representation of the formula b, at least not one that will commingle with assertions that come from triples of the form {loves,john,mary} peter
Received on Monday, 2 April 2001 16:24:29 UTC