- From: Marcelo Tallis <mtallis@teknowledge.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 16:00:17 -0700
- To: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
>Pat Hayes wrote: > > PS. There seems to be an implicit assumption in some of the RDF > literature that the only two things to do with a sentence (triple) > are to either assert it or to reify it, so any use that doesnt > involve asserting a triple must reify it. This is just wrong. Logical > notation is full of examples of sentences being used but not being > asserted. The simplest is probably negation: when one writes (not P), > P is being used (not mentioned or reified), but it is not being > asserted: on the contrary, in fact. Now, it might be that RDF is > incapable of making this distinction. So much the worse for RDF, if > so. Description Logics makes a clear separation between the TBox (the definition of terms) and the ABox (the assertions). I see the value of RDF for the latter. It seems awkward to me to define terms using triples. Marcelo Tallis
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2001 18:53:59 UTC