- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:26:03 -0700
- To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>
From: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> > >From: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org> > > > >> Why use a logic language instead of, say, Java byte code? Java (as > >> slow as it is!) would certainly run faster. My guess is that the > >> right thing to do is both. Provide a logical formula which constrains > >> the behavior of a program, and allow any program to be run which is > >> proven (or claimed, in some circumstances) to meet those constraints. > >> Trivial programs, like date validation, could probably be handled by > >> an automated theorem prover. More complex ones written in a > >> conventional language and proven compliant with machine assistance. > >> But perhaps now I'm off in never-never land. > > > >That might be an interesting train of thought. There is nothing that > >prevents RDF graphs from including (and\or referencing) programs. > > You mean, because a URI could refer to some code? Or in some other sense? Yes. But not only can it refer to code by URI, but it can also construct complete programs of smaller modules of code. Interpreters of RDF can run on the RDF to execute programs. Seth Russell
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2001 18:26:19 UTC