- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 15:52:36 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- CC: seth@robustai.net, drew.mcdermott@yale.edu, jonas@rit.se, phayes@ai.uwf.edu, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote: [...] > 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, I wonder about that... > at least not one that will commingle with > assertions that come from triples of the form > > {loves,john,mary} Er... why not? That's pretty much the design TimBL has coded up[swap]. I've been trying to convince myself alternatively that is or is not a sound design. Maybe you can settle this for me/us... Looking at it in KIF, the latter is: (loves john mary) and the former is, say, (log:forall '?a '(loves ?a mary)) where log:forall is defined so that this expands to (wtr '(forall (?a) (loves ?a mary))) I'm not sure how TimBL's design gets from a to 'a in the forall bit, but it seems to. Tim, can you explain why you don't need to quote the last occcurence of :a in the N3 way of doing quantification? { :a :loves :mary } a log:Truth; log:forAll :a. [swap] http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/ There's some difference between the {} mechanism in N3 and KIF's quoting and wtr that I can't figure out. When I looked at KIF and RDF, I couldn't work out all the quoting issues. http://www.w3.org/2000/07/hs78/KIF -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 2 April 2001 16:53:07 UTC