- From: Peter Crowther <peter.crowther@networkinference.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 16:40:09 +0100
- To: "'Geoff Chappell'" <geoff@sover.net>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> From: Geoff Chappell [mailto:geoff@sover.net] [...] > My understanding of the rdf roadmap is that RDF > will serve as a triple-based data model for storage of facts The problem that's slowly being exposed here seems to be that while RDF is capable of storing data (with no interpretation), it isn't capable of storing facts unless RDF has a firm semantic basis, because a fact is data as interpreted by some processor or logic system. If you put that firm semantic basis under pure RDF, its expressive power is either very limited (without reification) or slightly less limited but rather peculiar (with reification). For example, neither approach seems to allow negation, as it does not seem to be possible to build the notion of negation into the current version of RDF. If, instead, you want to allow higher layers to make use of RDF, it seems that some encoding is required to distinguish: (a) an RDF fact that can be interpreted using only RDF semantics, and is interpreted identically by a pure RDF engine or by any higher layer that uses the same semantics for interpreting RDF facts, versus (b) a data structure that happens to be expressed in RDF but can only be interpreted by a higher layer, and may not be interpreted identically by different higher layers. > Geoff Chappell - Peter -- Peter Crowther, VP Development, Network Inference Limited. http://www.networkinference.com
Received on Friday, 1 June 2001 11:40:42 UTC