Re: Joint Committee telecon tomorrow 10 February

From: Sandro Hawke (
Date: 02/10/04

  • Next message: Harold Boley: "Issue of explicit quantifiers in SWRL"
    > DRS [2] (Drew McDermott, et al - 40 min)
    I posted an example in my similar vocabulary here a few months ago:
    The significant issues LX addressed which I don't think DRS addresses
         -  A (Perlis-style safe) truth predicate.  DRS has no way to say
            which described formulas are to be considered true.  DRS has
            an "unstated convention that any formula [not used by another
            formula in that document] is asserted by that document."  I
            don't see how to use that in a merge-and-discard-at-will
            aggregator, except by turning it into an implied a use of a truth
         -  RDF reification wants the object of
            rdf:subject/predicate/object triple to be an element in the
            domain of discourse.  DRS puts a variable there sometimes,
            which I can't figure out how to keep straight.   LX uses a
            different reification vocabulary, where the object of those
            triples are TERMS in the reified logic, including variables
            and constants.  Constants can be linked to URIs.   (As Drew
            says: the cure for RDF syntax is more RDF syntax.)
    Myself, I'm still very torn about FOL vs FOL-Horn, feeling the appeal
    of each.
           -- sandro

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 02/10/04 EST