- From: Bill Andersen <andersen@ontologyworks.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 10:33:06 -0500
- To: RDF Logic <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
A sample: >>> 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. >> >> Is that true indeed? If a logical formula is encoded as a set of >> statements, wouldn't it be possible to find an interpretation that maps >> the corresponding resources into the domain of discourse, which contains >> people, Web sites, logical formulae and classes? > > Sure, you could have an RDF ``predicate'' for disjunction and one for > negation, etc., etc. However, there is no connection between the RDF > predicates and disjunction or negation within RDF, and this mapping is > precisely what I meant by a new semantics. Everybody, Please do us all a favor and change the subject line when you change the subject. This thread has deviated pretty sharply from the subject of ontolog(y|ies|ists). Thanks. .bill -- Bill Andersen Chief Scientist, Ontology Works 1132 Annapolis Road, Suite 104 Odenton, Maryland, 21113 Mobile 443-858-6444 Office 410-674-7600
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2001 11:33:38 UTC