- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 17:36:27 -0400
- To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
> Ian Horrocks wrote: > > On 1 Jul 2005, at 03:10, Michael Kifer wrote: > > > > > > > Ian Horrocks wrote: > >> > > [snip] > > > > I deleted most of the discussion, because it was already addressed in > > another message or became pointless. > > > >> On 30 Jun 2005, at 04:11, Michael Kifer wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> *Modulo the blank nodes. The post-facto RDF semantics treats blank > >>> nodes as > >>> head-existential, which is outside of LP. But there is another, > >>> LP-style > >>> semantics for blank nodes. > >> > >> We seem to be back to discussing RDF with a different semantics than > >> the one it *actually* has. If we assume that it would be possible to > >> give RDF syntax an alternative LP style semantics, then we would have > >> two completely separate language towers, one based on RDF and the > >> other > >> based on RDF-LP. This was *exactly* the point we were making in our > >> paper. > > > > First, it is not too late to fix the mistakes in RDF. As far as I > > know, the > > implementations of N3 don't respect the existential semantics of blank > > nodes. And you kept saying in this thread that N3 is an RDF language. > > Interesting. It seems that OWL and RDF are either: > > a) useless, because no one understands them and/or can use them > correctly, or > b) broken, and need to be "fixed". > > It is good that your position on this is now clear. This is an interesting statement. Given your choice of words, it looks to me more like a libelous aspersion than an inference from anything that I said. --michael
Received on Friday, 1 July 2005 21:36:35 UTC