- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:56:07 -0500
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>On 2002-06-25 16:08, "ext Alberto Reggiori" <areggiori@webweaving.org> >wrote: > >> Patrick Stickler wrote: >> >>> On 2002-06-24 18:00, "ext Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org> wrote: >>> >>> Note that the approach I am proposing also would support arbitrary >>> "colored" triples, not just a binary unasserted/asserted distinction: >>> >>> <rdf:Statement rdf:about="#foo"/> >>> <xxx:bar rdf:resource="#bas"/> >>> </rdf:Statement> >>> >>> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&xxx;bar"> >>> <rdf:type rdf:resource="#redPredicate"/> >>> </rdf:Description> >>> >>> <rdf:Statement rdf:about="#foo"/> >>> <yyy:bar rdf:resource="#bas"/> >>> </rdf:Statement> >>> >>> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&yyy;bar"> >>> <rdf:type rdf:resource="#bluePredicate"/> >>> </rdf:Description> >>> >>> <rdf:Statement rdf:about="#foo"/> >>> <zzz:bar rdf:resource="#bas"/> >>> </rdf:Statement> >>> >>> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&zzz;bar"> >>> <rdf:type rdf:resource="#greenPredicate"/> >>> </rdf:Description> >>> >>> etc. where a given application (e.g. via a "color" >>> specific API) would interact with the knowledge >>> base, seeing as asserted both the fundamental >>> RDF asserted triples as well as the colored >>> triples of interest. >> >> could you try to make an example which uses the above syntax to encode a >> rule/formula? i.e. X=>Y > >I'm not sure I could, perhaps someone else might dare to craft such an >example (if it can be done ;-) Rules *cannot* be expressed in current RDF(S). That is, not without imposing some new semantic constraints that are not present in RDF(S) itself. That is a provable consequence of the RDF MT, so please everyone stop trying to do the impossible. N3 is not RDF(S), it is a semantic extension (in fact, an incompatible semantic extension - a different language - since things like log:implies are not relations.) > >I don't see the definition of rules/formulas as the key purpose for >this approach. But rather simply a way of expressing unasserted statements, >which may or may not have additional qualifications per the fact that >the construction is a reification (stating). > >> can your syntax "scope" asserted and un-asserted as well then? i.e. doing >> things similar to the rdf:bagID effect :-) > >Well, that's more than I had anticipated having added to RDF parsing >(since we want to be *very* conservative at this stage in the game) >but that said, it would seem to me to be quite reasonable >to have a similar interpretation of rdf:bagID on an rdf:Statement >element per the proposed contracted form, to group the reified triples >just as for rdf:Description. > >Of course, we could also simply say that RDF as it is now defined >already provides for unasserted (dark) triples, First, it does not, since the reified triples are not even present in the graph; second, your whole technique is irrelevant in any case since most OWL assertions cannot be encoded as a single RDF triple. Pat >and the nasty, >obese syntax will just have to be tolerated until RDF 2.0 ;-) > >Cheers, > >Patrick > >-- > >Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 >Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 >Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2002 12:56:10 UTC