- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 14:04:54 -0500
- 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 :-) Pat --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Friday, 18 May 2001 15:04:54 UTC