W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > May 2001

RE: What do the ontologists want

From: Marcelo Tallis <mtallis@teknowledge.com>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 16:00:17 -0700
To: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AMEJJKLNDKJFJMKHDPOJCEHHCCAA.mtallis@teknowledge.com>

>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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:45:37 UTC