From: Stefan Decker (stefan@db.stanford.edu)
Date: 05/30/01
Pat, At 07:51 PM 5/29/2001 -0500, pat hayes wrote: >>Hi Pat, >> >>At 05:58 PM 5/29/2001 -0500, pat hayes wrote: >>>>Hi, >>>> >>>>some additions to Pats suggestion: >>>> >>>>1) In many applications it is important to distinguish between >>>>different kind of RDF data, eg. >>>> between different sources of RDF data, one is trustworthy, the other one >>>>not. >>> >>>That seems to me to be an assertion about the source rather than the >>>data (?) But in any case it goes well beyond the RDF or DAML semantics. >> >>If we built a rule language for processing of RDF data it is necessary to >>distinguish >>different sets of RDF data. > >Well OK, but I don't see why this topic comes up particularly when we talk >of rules. If you want to distinguish sets of RDF data, why not do it in >RDF? After all, RDF has the ability to describe its own expressions, so >this ought to fit into it naturally. Why not treat an set of RDF data as >something that is referrable to by a URI, ie a resource? It is indeed possible, but very cumbersome. All implementations I am aware of have opted to represent the context explicitly, rather than encoding it into RDF itself. But there are two different aspects: the query and rule language, and the actual representation in terms of tuples. For both I vote to make the context explicit: the context of RDF data is necessary in almost all applications which take different sources into account, so a rule and query language should have a convenient access to the context information. If not an explicit representation is chosen and reification is used to represent context, the amount of storage necessary multiplies by 5 - which is not acceptable for large amounts of data. >>One example where it is important to distinguish between >>different kind of sets of RDF data is when it comes from different >>sources, and that >>it originates from different sources is a property of the data. >>There are other applications areas, e.g. the computation of different >>semantics (see my RDF Schema >>example). > >We really must speak different languages. >(1) To speak of "computing" semantics doesnt make sense to me; and (2) why >would we want to be using different semantics in any case? Isnt the whole >idea to have a single semantics? f(1) E.g. Dix and Brewka in [1] define semantics as follows: "A semantics SEM is a mapping from the class of all programs into the powerset of the set of all 3 valued structured. SEM assigns to every program P a set of 3-valued models of P: SEM(P) \subseteq MOD^LP_{3-val}(P)" My remark above is (admittedly loosely) based on this notion of semantics as the deductive closure. [1] Knowledge Representation with Logic Program Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edition, Volume 6, Chapter 6, Oxford University Press, 2001. (2) A single semantics for one kind of language. We will have multiple languages represented in RDF, e.g. UML (see http://www-db.stanford.edu/~melnik/rdf/uml/ ) and it would be nice if the rule language we design is able to deal with multiple languages at the same time. Model identifier and skolem functions enable this. >>>>This needs to be reflected in the rule language - it is not sufficient >>>>to just query if a certain >>>>fact is present. To distinguish between different sources would be >>>>enabled by model identifiers >>>> >>>>subject[predicate->object]@model >>> >>>I have no idea what you are talking about. What is a 'model' in this sense? >> >>A set of RDF statements (triples). > >Ah, I see. What is the difference between saying, in M, that >subject[predicate->object] is true, and saying that >subject[predicate->object]@M Thats identical. >? Can I say subject[predicate->object]@M in N where N is different from M? no. (actually, I think we could if we define vocabulary representing the "true in a model" property and use reification. There are reasons not to do this (see above). Would it be useful? ) Stefan >Pat > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >IHMC (850)434 8903 home >40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office >Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax >phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST