The Unique Names Assumption + RDF Layer 1 as Restricted FOL

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