- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 09:16:12 +0100
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
pat hayes wrote: [...] > I'm not quite clear on the distinction here. I take it that the idea > of 'extending' RDF would be that there is a language RDF# which > contains RDF, ie every RDF expression is legal RDF#, and has (almost) > the same meaning in RDF# as it has in RDF; but RDF# allows other > kinds of expressions as well. > The other alternative is a language NEW which allows ground RDF facts > as legal expressions with the same meaning that they have in RDF, and > has other kinds of expressions as well. > > Hmm. The only difference seems to be that the parts of RDF that > express something other than ground facts might be missing from NEW, > but would have to be included in RDF#. The trouble is, there don't > seem to be any such other parts of RDF. I'm trying to understand the design space open to us. Description Logics for example, maintain a separation between what they call the A-box (which I think of as ground facts) and the T-box (which I think of as rules). This suggested to me that it might be possible to use RDF to represent the ground facts and a more powerful language to express the rules. I was hoping to shift the discussion onto first identifying the design space, and then discussing the relative merits of the various solutions open to us. Some test cases would enable us to compare different approaches. Brian
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 04:17:50 UTC