- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:37:02 -0500
- To: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>
- 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. How? That is, how would one describe this construction process in RDF? >Interpreters of RDF can run >on the RDF to execute programs. Why would you call that an *RDF* interpreter, though? 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 Wednesday, 10 October 2001 18:37:11 UTC