- From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 07:26:03 -0400
- To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Peter Crowther" <peter.crowther@networkinference.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Brian McBride wrote: > > I'd like to focus on my main question though. What are the relative > merits of 'extending' RDF v designing a new language for > expressing rules which operate on ground facts expressed in RDF. > The problem is the term 'ground fact' and the way it is equated with the simple _presence_ of a triple in RDF. In so doing, RDF uses up what a _fact_ is. For example, a new language or an extension of RDF might wish to equate a fact with an expression constructed of multiple triples e.g. a subgraph. But RDF does not allow the assertion of a subgraph without asserting every triple in the subgraph. Hence what should be a simple construct: (not (color sky blue)) becomes contorted. And this is for a simple expression. More complex expressions become hopelessely contorted. If RDF did not direct that a triple is and is always a fact, then other languages with use RDF would be free to define what are and are not facts. Jonathan Borden The Open Healthcare Group http://www.openhealth.org
Received on Monday, 4 June 2001 07:43:14 UTC