- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 15:23:20 -0400
- To: sandro@w3.org
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> Subject: Re: Why? Re: rdf as a base for other languages Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 12:49:14 -0400 > > > I really really don't mean to _assert_ that the diagnosis is one in that > > particular list. > > > > What I do wish to assert is the <if> expression. The problem with RDF as it > > is currently defined (statement == triple == fact) is that I cannot assert > > an expression created of multiple statements (i.e. a subgraph) apparently > > without asserting each of the subgraphs within the subgraph. > > (repeating Dan Connolly yesterday...) > > This seems to be a common myth. Where in the current definition of > RDF does it say that you cannot describe (mention) a triple without > asserting (using) it? > > (I wont be shocked if it does say it somewhere -- I'm not fond of the > current REC -- but I would love a pointer if you happen to know where > it says this.) > > -- sandro Let me turn this around. Where in the spec does it say that there is any way of mentioning a triple except by asserting it? (No, I don't count reification here.) peter
Received on Saturday, 2 June 2001 15:24:26 UTC