- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 01:42:44 +0100
- To: drew.mcdermott@yale.edu
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> In my opinion, this is an extremely messy way to approach what is > basically a simple problem. At any point in this downward spiral we > can jump ship and switch to a non-RDF language. Indeed, the only > reason to stick with an RDF language inside the quotes is to fool > ourselves into thinking we haven't left RDF; it's RDF outside the > quotes and RDF inside. But the stuff inside the quotes requires all > sorts of machinery that we didn't need outside them, so we really are > fooling ourselves. Pop-up an RDF node as/into an RDF graph *in place* (somewhat by-value). Its content is not asserted, only quoted in a *non-opaque* way (as RDF). We certainly can feed resolution-based logic/proof engines that way. -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2001 19:43:16 UTC