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

Re: What do the ontologists want

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 09:08:49 -0700
Message-ID: <008901c0dfb4$da2d8ee0$b17ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>, "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
From: "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>

> But whatever you call it, the point is that the *logical* syntax in
> this case is NOT the triples, but these more complicated structures
> that are being implemented as sets of triples. So we need to somehow
> specify the rules for what counts as being well-structured (not every
> set of triples will be) and we will probably need a few
> datastructuring primitives (like end-of-chain markers, cf. Lisp NIL.)
> In other words, we will have to do a little work. Just a tad, but we
> will need to do it. Sorry if that's not anarchic enough. (There isnt
> anything odd or exotic about all this, let me emphasize: its is just
> ordinary bread-and-butter datastructure design. We really do teach it
> to our undergraduates.)

Yes triples combine to form more complex structures.  The individual triples
that compose those larger structures cannot be isolated and mean anything.
But it is a slippery slope as to where you draw the line ... and i think
that is true of any  kind of logic that deals with reality.  In other words
it is the behavior of the entire graph (model) that has meaning, not an
individual piece.  The simplest case of this that I can think of is the
concept 'give' ... {John gave candy to Mary} .... I have coded this in
tripels for you amusement [1].  It is just this kind of conceptual
dependency (as Shank called it) that triples do well.  And I agree, we need
a concept (like 'slot' see diagram) to implement this above the RDF triples.

[1] http://robustai.net/mentography/conceptualDependency.gif

Incidentally, I'm still trying to wrap my pee brain around the idea that
there is a problem with 'not' here.   To me {B subClass A.  C subClass A.  B
not C.} is a perfectly valid thing to say and nicely implies {B xor C}.
Does it not ?

Received on Friday, 18 May 2001 12:14:57 UTC

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