- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 09:48:57 -0400
- To: sandro@w3.org
- Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> Subject: Re: What is an RDF Query? Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 08:57:14 -0400 > Rather that go into a lengthy reply, can I just say "layering" and > point out that I said "LISP syntax" (atoms and dotted pairs) not "the > LISP programming language" (with lambda and everything). Is that > enough? RDF clearly can't talk about the color of my dog without us > defining some terms (that is, extending the language), and the same > goes for talking about rules, queries, ontologies, schemas, and (if > we're as pure as I think we should be in defining the bottom layer) > bags, sequences, statements, and types. > > -- sandro Certainly, you can say ``layering'' and ``LISP syntax'', but that doesn't explain how it would work. The beauty of LISP is two-fold: 1/ a simple syntax, and 2/ an elegant programming language. If you take away the programming language, then the syntax is not nearly as useful. Closer to home, consider the situation with first-order logic. The beauty of first-order logic is not (just) its (relatively) simple syntax. A beauty of first-order logic is, instead, in its, dare I say it, programming language. That is, first-order logic has sufficient power to have statements (axioms) that can implement many things that one might want to do. This power does not come from the syntax of first-order logic, but instead comes from its semantics. You don't have to extend first-order logic to get (some) of what you want with modalities. You can, instead, implement a proof theory for modal logic inside first-order logic. Of course, you do pay a price for this, as these axiomatizations are not likely to work well with current first-order provers. (I also claim that there are other prices that you pay for this sort of implementation.) The situation is much different with less-expressive representational systems, like RDF. In such systems, there is no possibility of implementing proof theories within the system itself. To me, this makes a syntactic encoding into RDF not very useful. (If, however, you are proposing an extension to RDF, that would be different. Of course, an extension needs a lot more than just a syntax.) Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2001 09:49:41 UTC