- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 11:43:36 -0700
- To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
From: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org> > The problem here is that your labeling of "?everyone" as a univerally > quantified variable, while it is carried by RDF, is not part of the > definition of RDF. Hmmm... neither is the definition of 'is strong with' in RDF, that definition needs to be layered on top of RDF in a schema. What makes the definition of 'forall' any different in this regards? But I understand what you are saying, I just think saying it with the words "we can't use RDF as the only language" is misleading because we certainly can use RDF as the only carrier, and what is a carrier but a language ... right? > So what you're doing here is making a new logic language, one which > has universally quantified variables, and using RDF to carry an > expression in that language. Well, some of the knowledge is in that > language, and some is in normal RDF, which does make it a bit > confusing. For me, every thing in the language must end up being a labeled arc or an implied labeled arc ... that is what I would like a RDF model theory to mean. My trouble with quantifiers in FOPC is that they are just a syntactic trick, they don't end up being labeled arcs ... but they certainly could be. http://robustai.net/mentography/forceIsStrong.gif Thanks for the dialogue ... Seth Russell
Received on Monday, 8 October 2001 14:07:19 UTC