- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 06 Mar 2002 16:07:24 -0600
- To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: jonathan@openhealth.org, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Tue, 2002-03-05 at 11:54, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
[...]
> I definitely agree with you that RDF reification is cumbersome. But that
> doesn't make N3 formulae significantly better than RDF reification. In
> fact, the (only) meaning given for N3 is via an underspecified ``mapping into
> the RDF data model'', so somehow N3 formulae have to be mapped into RDF.
My favorite N3 spec explains it in terms of KIF (i.e.
first order logic plus quoting).
* a formal design for RDF/N3 context/scopes
Dan Connolly to www-rdf-logic, Thu, Sep 06 2001
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Sep/0004.html
cited from the "Logic primitives" section of
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3
With running code to convert any N3 expression to KIF.
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/KIFSink.py
That reminds me... I'd like to see the same-syntax paradox
written out in KIF. Maybe I could do it myself, but
if you beat me to it, Peter (or anybody else), I'd appreciate it.
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2002 17:08:13 UTC