- From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 08:29:00 -0400
- To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>
Graham Klyne wrote: > 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. > In particular, I recall something that TimBL stated at the February RDFIG F2F to the effect that: the assertions in an RDF document ought be considered either as if or actually _legally binding_ (please correct me if I have misstated this). It seems to me that if this is desirable, the semantics of RDF need to be clearcut. For example: (not (owes Jon $1,000,000)) Whether the statement "(owes Jon $1,000,000)" is a fact or a falsehood depends on the context. If this simple concept is not correctly understood, the rest is hopeless.*** -Jonathan *** I suggest that we adopt a common semantics for simple logic operations such as Drew McDermott's http://cs-www.cs.yale.edu/homes/dvm/daml/proposal.html or TimBL's http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2000/10/swap/log.n3?rev=1.3&content-type=text/x-cvs web-markup We can debate Quine's: Two Dogmas of Empiricism for some time, but regardless of whether there is one true language of logic, as an engineer I find it useful for us to share and use a small set of common terms.
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2001 08:46:16 UTC