- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 22:00:02 -0400
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Back in February, you pointed out that my terminology when I talked about "generating unique names" (which I now call something like otherwise-unused names) was confusing, giving the existing terminology of the "unique names" assumption (the idea that distinct names denote distinct objects). I think we agree that it's impractical to have this assumption among names in a global (widely distributed) namespace, so if RDF documents are to all share one denotation map, then they must work without the unique names assumption. I'm thinking that means RDF is not exactly ground atomic binary relationships. I was trying to think of the RDF layer 1 language as FOL with a restricted syntax: only one predicate (of arity 3, call it "RDF" perhaps), no functions, conjunction as the only connective, no equality, no negation, .... Anyway, it seems to me that the terms, rather than being constants, should all be existentially quantified variables: that makes them match our not having the unique names assumption. Does that seem right to you? (I'm not trying to open the floor for what a layer 1 language should be yet, just trying to characterize what I think it might be, which may help us when/if we do open the floor.) -- sandro
Received on Sunday, 20 May 2001 22:00:09 UTC