- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 18:36:33 +0100
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, sandro@w3.org, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
At 10:35 AM 6/5/01 +0100, Brian McBride wrote: >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? I wouldn't say "necessary", and I don't have a pointer for you, but it seems to me useful if RDF is a sub-language of LL, because that way an LL processor can consume RDF and interpret it the same way as a simple, non-logical application. Further, if there turn out to be several LLs, it might be very useful if they all recognize the same ground facts with compatible interpretations. [Peter: I'll address separately a related point you raised about such extension being not possible] #g ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Monday, 4 June 2001 17:44:06 UTC