- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 06:24:38 -0400
- To: "patrick hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
patrick hayes wrote: > >Gentlemen, > > > >I'm getting rather frustrated. Perhaps it is a mistake to write a model > >theory for RDF, as it appears too constraining. > > What it constrains is what RDF inference engines are supposed to do. > I WANT that to be constrained. I've never seen this so called 'constrained' RDF inference engine, indeed every _useful_ piece of software I've seen has extended this base RDF interpretation in some way from something like implementing daml:UniqueProperty to implementing a more extensive logic engine such as in CWM. Indeed since base RDF itself is just a bunch of assertions, I'm not sure what inferencing you can do _with RDF alone_ rather it seems just the mechanism for carrying 'facts'. I worry that all this emphasis on inferencine _within_ RDF is over constraining the ability to do inferencing _on_ RDF. So why not just say that RDF is a bunch of assertions and forget about this pure RDF inferencing engine that doesn't seem to exist and let the folks who care about inferencing decide what inferences might be drawn from a certain bunch of facts and be done with it. Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 06:38:10 UTC