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

Re: What do the ontologists want

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 14:04:54 -0500
Message-Id: <v0421012ab72b2210f885@[]>
To: David Allsopp <dallsopp@signal.dera.gov.uk>
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>pat hayes wrote:
> > ...the problem is not being able to say
> > all these good things about assertions: it is that triples (alone)
> > are not adequate to be the assertions. They are too SMALL. They don't
> > let me say what I want to be able to say: they don't let me say (NOT
> > ...)  or (... OR ....) or (EVERY .... IS ....). These kinds of
> > assertions need more than single triples, you see, because they have
> > more than three parts. A simple point, surely? (And please don't tell
> > me that you can do this with "reification". I know, I know: read on.)
>Ah, light dawns - that clears up my questions in yesterdays email too;
>thank you.
>So the RDF dilemma is that either A) we stick to very trivial things
>expressible with single triples
>or B) attempt to feed an inference engine a mixture of assertions and
>syntactic sugar, and watch it choke...8-)

Precisely. Or what we actually do is, watch the various different 
engines all doing different things and nobody being able to say 
whether that is OK or not, and confusion reigning across webland, 
because everyone thinks the notation means something different. Just 
like before RDF came along, in fact :-)


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Friday, 18 May 2001 15:04:54 UTC

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