- From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 11:52:47 -0400
- To: "Geoff Chappell" <geoff@sover.net>, "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Geoff Chappell wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net> > ... > > Now suppose I enter a statement to the effect that "everything John says > is > > true". > > > > The model _does not_ contain a mechanism to unreify the statement _as a > > statement_ i.e. still does not contain the statement: > > Isn't that because rdf is just the first step/layer? RDF has no mechanisms > to handle variables, quantification, implications, etc. (and so as a > knowledge representation language it's not particulary expressive.) But > wasn't that always the plan? My understanding of the rdf roadmap is that RDF > will serve as a triple-based data model for storage of facts -- I guess the big problem I see is that RDF defines a _fact_ which seems step on the toes of semantics (perhaps it plain smashed the toes), and goes on to define _reification_, which if not stepping on toes is perhaps more like breaking its ankles. > with > reification just a convention to store "preparsed metafacts" that will only > be given meaning by a processor/logic system higher up in the chain (i.e.a > system might have a rule: infer {?a ?b ?c} from {say john {?a ?b ?c}}). So > much of the argument/confusion about reification seems to stem from the fact > that it's pretty useless without another layer (and the fact that it tries > to do too much/has overloaded meaning - with bags, etc.). exactly. > > Do others see it differently? is rdf trying to become a fully expressive > knowledge representation language -- a la kif -- in and of itself ? There > seems to be so much blurring at times between the rdf triple model, its xml > serialization, and the logic layer(s) that act upon it. I worry that if > those layers aren't kept distinct (at least conceptually) poor decisions > will be made about where functionality belongs. > I think this is the reason to define an RDF Abstract Syntax which is capable of representing expressions, and using which expressions can be stored in a database etc. Onto this should be attached appropriate semantics. -Jonathan
Received on Friday, 1 June 2001 12:09:38 UTC