On 1/22/2014 12:01 AM, John McClure wrote:
> How can FOL'ers not be implicitly derisive of the work RDF'ers are
> diligently about, when the first reaction is to THROW IT AWAY? (01)
That's not the point I was trying to make. I'm sorry that I used
the phrase 'throw it away' because it was not clear what I was
rejecting. (02)
First point: FOL is a small subset of English and other NLs.
Any language that has the words 'and', 'or', 'not', 'some',
and 'every' can express full FOL. We all speak FOL every day. (03)
Second point: I wasn't rejecting what can be expressed in RDF.
You can use RDF to describe anything that you see, hear, or feel.
Every observation in science can be described in RDF. (04)
But RDF can't express negation. You can't say 'not'. And if you
take RDF and add negation, you get -- guess what -- full FOL. (05)
Some things you can't say in RDF: (06)
1. Options: you can't say 'or' in RDF, because (p or q) is
defined as not(not p and not q) -- and RDF can't say 'not'. (07)
2. Rules: you can't express an if-then rule in RDF, because
(if p then q) is defined as not(p and not q). (08)
3. Generalizations: you can express 'all' or 'every' in RDF
because 'every cat is an animal' is defined as
'it's false that some cat is not an animal'. (09)
My major complaint about RDF is that it makes simple things difficult. (010)
John (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (012)
|