- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 17:39:47 -0400
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- Cc: GK@ninebynine.org, connolly@w3.org, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com> Subject: Re: MISC: Internet Media Type registration: proposed TAG finding Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 00:14:13 +0200 > > [...] > > > > > > I can think of two agents (cwm and Euler) that > > > > > do a lot more than simple entailment, when > > > > > asked to. I think of them as RDF agents. > > > > > > > > They are not. > > > > > >Er... I accept that as your opinion. > > >I disagree. > > > > It seems we need to define what is meant by an "RDF agent". In > particular, > > is it entitled to draw inferences that are not licensed by RDF? > > I would say yes, but better call them "RDF based mechanisms" or some such. > We also declare the so called "namespace entailment" like in > > ( <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/rdf/rdfs-transitive-subSubProperty/test003.nt> > <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/rdf/rdfs-transitive-subSubProperty/test004.nt> > <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> > <http://www.w3.org/2001/10/daml+oil#> ) > log:entails > <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/rdf/rdfs-transitive-subSubProperty/test004.nt> . > > and those namespaces URI's tell us that we have > to respect RDFS respectively OWL entailment > (given their MT's). If this sort of thing is in RDF there appears to be no way to proceed. I would like to write a correct reasoner for RDF. You seem to be saying that this reasoner would have to respect the extra-RDF meanings of things like log:forAll, log:entails, and ont:UnambiguousProperty. I don't see any way that I can do this. Even if you don't want to build a correct reasoner, how are you going to explain your reasoning to other agents? In essence this approach destroys the common language with which to communicate to other agents. [...] > -- > Jos peter
Received on Sunday, 26 May 2002 17:39:58 UTC