- From: Peter Crowther <peter.crowther@networkinference.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 10:59:39 +0100
- To: "'Brian McBride'" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> From: Brian McBride [mailto:bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com] [...] > 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. Brian, can I ask how you would encode such a language in RDF yet prevent it from being RDF --- or, at least, being mis-interpreted as RDF by a non-LL-aware agent? I guess I'm taking issue with the 'of course' in the above paragraph; I think that encoding process needs clarification. - Peter
Received on Monday, 4 June 2001 05:59:55 UTC