- From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 19:12:18 -0400
- To: "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Pat, > > > >I agree that there currently exists alot of fuzziness in this regard. I am > >in the process of trying to clean this up by providing a (hopefully) logical > >framework. http://www.rddl.org/SchemaAlgebra is a work in progress > >addressing some of these issues. > > Great. Thanks for the pointers and exposition. I will try to digest them. Hopefully you have a robust digestive system. I am certain there are syntactic issues in the way that I have written the formulae but hopefully they are intelligable enough for you to understand what I am trying to represent :-) > > > >'(says 'Jon '(isColor 'sky 'blue)) > > > >what is the problem with access to structure? > > Ah, but now you have changed the quotation rules (if I follow you). > This seems to be quotation as in LISP, where it really means > something different: the quote mark is a tag to prevent evaluation. yes. I was specifically assuming the existence of something like an 'eval' mechanism. > > So it has no semantics at all? I doubt if that is really what you > mean, since then it would have no point to it, as far as I can see. > Certainly the RDF literature seems to *want* RDF to actually mean > something. I think the analogy is to LISP where the underlying datatype is a list, and from this we can build structures that represent knowledge. 'abstract syntax' is very apropos. In this case RDF triples are identical to car-cdr register pairs. It is the structures that are built on top of triples that I expect to be semantically interesting. This viewpoint may not be shared by all in the RDF community, but nonetheless. -Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2001 20:01:53 UTC