[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Triad Logic

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "public-lod@xxxxxx" <public-lod@xxxxxx>
From: "Obrst, Leo J." <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 23:58:02 +0000
Message-id: <FDFBC56B2482EE48850DB651ADF7FEB01F20B823@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Given his responses on the public-lod list, I think he's blowing smoke.    (01)

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kingsley Idehen
>Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 2:19 PM
>To: public-lod@xxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Triad Logic
>On 6/25/13 2:13 PM, Gregg Reynolds wrote:
>> Hi list,
>> Just posted a article at http://blog.mobileink.com/ that may be of
>> interest to members of the list.  It's a fairly detailed formal
>> definition of what I'm calling a "Triad" calculus (or logic or
>> language) that I believe could be used to define RDF-like languages
>> very concisely, expressively, and formally.  I think there's enough
>> there, there, so you can see what I'm getting at.  It might be useful
>> in the Great LD Definition Debate of 2013.
>> There are two specific aspects of it for which I would appreciate any
>> pointers to related work.  One is a concept, "strengthening", as
>> counterpart to the standard idea of extending a language (or
>> entailment regime): basically, instead of adding to the language, you
>> reclassify the symbol set.  It seems to me that strengthening (as I
>> describe it in the blog) is pretty serviceable as one of the
>> fundamental differences between RDF languages and FOL.  I don't recall
>> coming across anything similar, but my knowledge of the logic
>> literature is hardly encyclopedic.  I expect somebody must have
>> written something about it (maybe calling it something else); pointers
>> welcome.
>> The other thing is sticking existential quantification in the
>> meta-language and using "rewrite" rules to get from (what are
>> effectively) triples with blank nodes to the equivalent formal
>> quantificational sentence.  Seems to work well enough; if it does, I
>> suppose it's a technique that must have been used somewhere, so again,
>> pointers appreciated.
>> Also:  is this the right place for this kind of post?
>I've copied in the ontology forum. I certainly know you'll feedback from
>there :-)
>> Cheers,
>> Gregg
>Kingsley Idehen
>Founder & CEO
>OpenLink Software
>Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>    (02)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J    (03)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>