- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 19:57:45 -0500
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>... >Pat wrote: > > Maybe we should stick to using RDF as a simple ground-data language, > > and just build or use something else altogether for doing more > > complicated stuff. > >Well maybe or maybe not (what was that again?) >I'm still thinking about 'transistors' (*) and >trying to build 'logic circuits' without them >(but maybe my teachers brainwashed me too much) > >-- >Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ > >(*) 'some'-things like e.g. > ----- > is----->| s | > | ----- > ----- p ----- > | |---->| o | > ----- ----- This can be done, sure, but unless we can do it in a way that alows the 'relational' interpretation of RDF triples as well as the construction/circuit sense, then we are just using RDF as an implementation language, and judged on that basis it isn't particularly useful (IMHO). Whereas it is clearly of utility for interchanging ground relational data. So, rather than try to make it be all things to all men, let us just optimise it for a relatively humble, but valuable, intended use and move on to other things for other purposes, was my point. Pat --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Friday, 8 June 2001 20:57:41 UTC