Re: SEM: Re: more on a same-syntax extension from RDF(S) to OWL

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

cited from the "Logic primitives" section of

With running code to convert any N3 expression to KIF.

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

Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2002 17:08:13 UTC