- From: Danny Ayers <danny@panlanka.net>
- Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 23:09:32 +0600
- To: "David Allsopp" <dallsopp@signal.dera.gov.uk>
- Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
<- IANAL*, but I think it's because an arbitrary machine C, which only <- knows 'standard' RDF, won't understand, and will not be able to process <- the data in the way intended by A. The data then have different meanings <- to different machines, which defeats the whole purpose of the semantic <- web. The negation is not built-in to RDF, so it has no meaning in its <- own right. The meaning is 'outside' the system, as in Pat Hayes' <- "punched cards with writing on them". Any processing is going to be going on in the machines, so why does the meaning need to be in the RDF - just the machines. Where is the meaning in the punched-card holes? Ok, another line - let's say you've got this propositional stuff in place, common to A, B and C. But machine D wants to play snooker. Do you extend the common language to include the rules of snooker? I can certainly see how ambiguity in the spec could cause problems, but not lack of functionality - if I have a triple representing 'pot the red ball' and I am machine D, I know what to do. If I am machine A, 'pot the red ball' has no meaning to me - so what am I going to do - 'pot the black ball'????
Received on Monday, 9 April 2001 13:12:54 UTC