- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 10:22:21 -0400
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- cc: las@olin.edu, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
pat sez:
> My point was that even with a (full) understanding of how to
> interpret the RDF, it still wouldnt be a translation of disjunction.
> Disjunction is not expressible in RDF.
>
> (I might add that I would not keep going on about this if people
> (like Sandro) didnt keep saying the opposite.)
I'm not saying disjunction is expressible in RDF [caveat below]. I'm
saying, of course, that disjunction is expressible in a language which
can be layered on RDF, and talking about how we might work with that
layering (which is why I was getting into performatives). Peter's use
of a vocabular term ("OR") which is not in RDF meant that his example
text was (for the most part) meaningless without outside knowledge of
the meaning of that term. To respond to his message I explicitely
inferred (using human knowledge) what he meant by the term; of course
a computer would not be expected to do that -- it would only
understand his RDF if the term OR had been defined for it.
-- sandro
* caveat: I mean RDF in just the sense of positive ground triples.
Disjunction may be expressible with RDF as specified in M&S 1.0
using "alt", but I'm trying to ignore that.
Received on Saturday, 2 June 2001 10:22:38 UTC