- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 10:35:54 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- CC: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, sandro@w3.org, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Graham Klyne wrote: > Why the insistence on all-or-nothing? Is there any fundamental reason why > we cannot start with a language capable of expressing ground facts, and > extend it in a consistent way (creating a new language, "outside" the > original) such that the original language for expressing ground facts is > present as a sub-language? A good question Graham, which for me begs another. RDF is a simple language for representing binary predicates. It is intended to represent simple ground facts about the world. 'Logic Systems' require a more powerful language, capable of representing, for example quantification. It would seem that there are (at least) 2 approaches to creating that language. One is to 'extend' RDF. The other is to design a new language with richer capabilities. With the latter approach, ground facts are represented by RDF. Rules/Logic are represented by the logic language (LL). Processors implement rules/logic expressed in LL operating on ground facts represented in RDF. LL of course, could be encoded in RDF, but that is not the same thing as it 'being' RDF. Can you point me to an explanation as to why extending RDF is the better approach? Why is it necessary or better that RDF be a sub-language of LL? Brian
Received on Monday, 4 June 2001 05:37:06 UTC