- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 07:28:58 -0500
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> > More detail > =========== > > For example, we can have separate files, some of consequences, some of > conclustions, and then say that files A, B, and C entail files D, E and F. > > This can be made formal quite easily. > My belief is that that is sufficient for the only use cases I am aware of > that is in charter for this group. Those use cases are to have clear > discussions within the group and for the stating of test cases for > implementations. Are the use cases Lynn gave within scope? What about the most simple expressions: (or [sky color blue][leaf color green]) (not [rose color red]) Are you suggesting that I need to put each triple in its own file? The inability to make an expression which contains a nested subexpression without asserting each subexpression seems to be a Draconian limitation on the underlying language with which we are to work. I am not sure what motivates this. I note that this is _not_ a limitation of the MT rather the RDF _syntax_. It would be easy enough to fix. > > I do not believe that we will need logical entailment in our language. > I will leave that to the DL experts. I would just like to point out that _other_ languages whether they be RuleML or N3 which do deal with general logic, will necessarily be written in _other than_ the current RDF. Since I do think that compatibility with these languages will be of essence this emphasizes the importance of maximal compatibility with XML -- since that is the other language in our charter. Jonathan Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2002 06:52:17 UTC