- From: Jim Hendler <jhendler@darpa.mil>
- Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 12:08:36 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, GK@ninebynine.org
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
At 11:58 AM -0400 5/21/01, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >In defense of stripped-down RDF, there is nothing technically wrong with a >logical formalism that can represent only positive ground triples. Such a >formalism can certainly convey some useful semantic information. > >It is just that such a representation formalism cannot be used to >*represent* anything more than positive ground triples. Using positive >ground triples to encode a more-expressive formalism requires encoding, which >requires a new semantics, defined on top of the semantics for the positive >ground triples, and makes it essentially impossible to use the semantics >for the positive ground triples to represent domain information. > >Peter F. Patel-Schneider >Bell Labs Research > In other words, if someone built an ontology language on top of an RDF-like langauge we could do important things with it. Gee, why didn't I think of that? -JH Dr. James Hendler jhendler@darpa.mil Chief Scientist, DARPA/ISO 703-696-2238 (phone) 3701 N. Fairfax Dr. 703-696-2201 (Fax) Arlington, VA 22203 http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler
Received on Monday, 21 May 2001 12:08:20 UTC