- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:18:39 -0600
- To: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>
- Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
>From: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> > >> I agree, sure. But there are no such ways in RDF, as the model theory >> makes clear. (There are in DAML+OIL, which has a more complicated >> semantics to go with its more complicated syntax.) > >Well it seems we are arguing over what 'in RDF' means. In another post you >said: > > Saying that some meaning is "in L", where L is some formal language > with a formal semantics, is usually taken to mean that that meaning is > accessible to an engine that knows (only) the semantic rules of L. > You ought to be able to figure out the meaning from the L-expressions > plus what you can learn from reading the L manual. If you need to go > beyond what it says in the L manual to figure out the meaning, it's not >"in L". > >But can't can define in RDF how to define? Right, we can't. RDF is really a very small, restricted language with limited expressive powers. RDFS has some more, DAML+OIL has more still, and full FOL has more, and KIF has even more. And there are things that cannot be said in any of these, but can be said in, say, LISP. >Then won't we be able to define >new conepts in our language? You can do that in RDFS and up. But defining is one thing; defining HOW TO define is something altogether hairier. > If we can do this, then one cannot stand up >and keep saying that anyting that is said in RDF syntax and vocabulary is >not truly in RDF ... can they? It seems to me that you are painting us >into a impractical situation. I mean thinking that whenever we coin a new >word in English, we are speaking a new language is not going to be a winning >idea. On the contrary, that is exactly the idea that you have to get used to; because if you coin a new word, then indeed the language has changed as far as any mechanical processor is concerned. >Now maybe that is just what formal languages do ... well fine for formal >languages. Maybe what we are saying is that RDF is the worlds first >quasiformal language ... it has some of the properties of a formal language >and also some of the properties of a natural language. RDF is not the worlds first anything. It is existential-conjunctive logic restricted to binary relations, period. It has almost none of the properties of natural language, and the sooner that everyone gets this clear, the better, because then we can have some sensible discussions. >In any case .... please, please ... let's not cut its balls off !!! It doesn't have any balls. If you can tell us how to grow some, that might be more use. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Thursday, 8 November 2001 12:18:33 UTC