[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
[Danny Ayers]
>
> > Wrong model - not() is a monadic relation, not binary. RDF can have no
> > monadic relations, even with [name your favorite] layered on top.
>
> A is equivalent to not B
>
> is a usable (binary) form of negation surely?
>
It is a compound statement - you have {not B} and {A is equivalentTo x} {x
sameIndividualAs (not B)} - You still do not have a statement for "not B".
You see, you cannot really do it with triples. I suppose some actual
logician may be able to work it out - these OWL classes are sneaky.
> At risk of being mocked by logicians (the horror!) I would have thought
that
> it was possible to 'downcast' binary relationships using the universal,
> something like
>
> A isFalse B
>
> with B being false forall A
>
But we do not have a forall either (KIF, anyone?).
> Anyhow, thanks for the interesting points. Believe it or not I remain
> optimistic that RDF can do a lot of the stuff CGs can do without too much
> extra work.
Well, obviously there is a subset of GC that is equivalent to RDF. And
Sowa's CG writings show examples of converting a situation to a conceptual
relation, or converting a concept to a conceptual relation (here come those
bnodes again). What I would really like to see is some decent way to
emulate a CG's context box. That may not be so bad after all. I have been
cogitating about the same thing for topic maps.
Seems to me that if you have RDF nodes that represent the equivalent of
conceptual relations, then the closest thing to a context box is the set of
those nodes together with the triples that connect them to their nearest
neighbors. Not quite the same thing, but perhaps close enough to be useful.
Still, how to represent that subgraph, given that triples have no identity?.
> I want a little relaxation this coming month, maybe I'll have a
> crack at Analogical Reasoning in RDF ;-)
>
Yes, I really want to understand it! I took a quick run at Pi-calculus,
but it is going to take me a lot more than that.
Cheers,
Tom P
|
