bijan: "I have been told that using Lisp and Lisp-like exchanges, ontologies, i.e. KIF, FIPA ACL, KQML, Ontolingue is not "fashionable" these days, and that everything should go the XML way."
bijan: "I disagree. I think the world is heading to a "very confined" place with the Semantic Web, RDF, DAML, etc.; that will exclude the possiblity of having true distributed intelligent and mobile agents in the future."
bijan: When the Lisp people fear you and resent your success...you still have no idea if you've succeeded!
bijan: (Though I do adore Common Lisp and sexprs, etc.)
bijan: "I disagree. I think the world is heading to a "very confined" place with the Semantic Web, RDF, DAML, etc.; that will exclude the possiblity of having true distributed intelligent and mobile agents in the future."
bijan: When the Lisp people fear you and resent your success...you still have no idea if you've succeeded!
bijan: (Though I do adore Common Lisp and sexprs, etc.)
danbri: "This draft document describes an initial set of extensible formal object
danbri: "Objects which are Renderable may be asked to produce a Rendering based on a set of Preferences. This is analogous to HTTP Get."
danbri: "Objects which are Renderable may be asked to produce a Rendering based on a set of Preferences. This is analogous to HTTP Get."
Seth: i mentographed that
Seth: also see relationship between 3 principles of logic ... a bit more contraversial
Seth: also see relationship between 3 principles of logic ... a bit more contraversial
Seth: But (S) is in fact a false, there is no such sentence. We all know that if we admit falsehoods in our ontology, that we can prove anything. I don't get this :(
bijan: Seth, reread the argument for incompatibilty. What follows if S is false?
Seth: The Strengthened Liar Paradox (doesn't need the principle of bivalence)
Seth: he did not prove the case where (S) was nonsense
Seth: (S) is neither True or False .... it's just nonsense
bijan: Run that case. (Remember that being neither True nor False is a way of being not True.)
bijan: And pop up a level to check out some standard analyses.
bijan: Seth, reread the argument for incompatibilty. What follows if S is false?
Seth: The Strengthened Liar Paradox (doesn't need the principle of bivalence)
Seth: he did not prove the case where (S) was nonsense
Seth: (S) is neither True or False .... it's just nonsense
bijan: Run that case. (Remember that being neither True nor False is a way of being not True.)
bijan: And pop up a level to check out some standard analyses.
bijan: Now, drop the reification and show us the dark triple version!
sandro: Dark Triples are just meant to allow Drew to not assert the triples which describe the FOL sentences. Drew says he doesn't need that, and I agree with him.
bijan: Er...obviously he doesn't need them, since this version made do with reification. That doesn't mean that it might not be neater, or funer, with them.
sandro: I don't see how, but maybe. (shudder)
bijan: Of course, my "request" isn't predicated on using dark triples being better in any way to using reification. Just as it wasn't predicated on the silly (I adopt the sandro) implication that anyone said that DTs were necessary to Drew's project here. If they were somehow necessary then I would have had a paper (or email) refuting that article.
sandro: Dark Triples are just meant to allow Drew to not assert the triples which describe the FOL sentences. Drew says he doesn't need that, and I agree with him.
bijan: Er...obviously he doesn't need them, since this version made do with reification. That doesn't mean that it might not be neater, or funer, with them.
sandro: I don't see how, but maybe. (shudder)
bijan: Of course, my "request" isn't predicated on using dark triples being better in any way to using reification. Just as it wasn't predicated on the silly (I adopt the sandro) implication that anyone said that DTs were necessary to Drew's project here. If they were somehow necessary then I would have had a paper (or email) refuting that article.
sbp: In this message, Pat Hayes proposes "dark triples"; triples that are present - but not asserted - in the RDF graph
bijan: A key "aha" bit for me: "The point of this is that RDF triples can be used both to make some simple assertions and also as a datastructure, but these two uses tend to trip over one another."
sbp: WebONT recently held a strawpoll vote which came up in favour of dark triples
sandro: "dark-triples" is just a way to have a pair of RDF-graphs in one place. Which is silly, since we'll be having billions of RDF graphs in one place, soon enough.
sandro: Maybe some of those RDF graphs have different model theoretic meaning than others. Maybe.
bijan: "Maybe". <snicker/>
bijan: I will say that I don't think there's a reading of PatH's proposal that reduces to Sandro's characterization. I surely don't get what "one place" means.
bijan: Note that there is a specific relation between the two graphs.
bijan: A key "aha" bit for me: "The point of this is that RDF triples can be used both to make some simple assertions and also as a datastructure, but these two uses tend to trip over one another."
sbp: WebONT recently held a strawpoll vote which came up in favour of dark triples
sandro: "dark-triples" is just a way to have a pair of RDF-graphs in one place. Which is silly, since we'll be having billions of RDF graphs in one place, soon enough.
sandro: Maybe some of those RDF graphs have different model theoretic meaning than others. Maybe.
bijan: "Maybe". <snicker/>
bijan: I will say that I don't think there's a reading of PatH's proposal that reduces to Sandro's characterization. I surely don't get what "one place" means.
bijan: Note that there is a specific relation between the two graphs.
bijan: "This web page is a revised and extended version of Appendix A from the book Conceptual Structures by John F. Sowa."
bijan: I really want to get holdof his Knowledge Representation book.
bijan: If you read and master each of these sections, you should have a good lay grasp of logic.
bijan: Though, perhaps, with a few misconceptions. He doesn't seem to think that natural deduction systems exist (axioms? we don't need no stinkin' axioms!)
bijan: I really want to get holdof his Knowledge Representation book.
bijan: If you read and master each of these sections, you should have a good lay grasp of logic.
bijan: Though, perhaps, with a few misconceptions. He doesn't seem to think that natural deduction systems exist (axioms? we don't need no stinkin' axioms!)
Seth: for later reference
sandro: Yes, normal RDF reification does NOT quote the symbols. You're saying "Jimmy says he saw superman" which means the same thing as "Jimmy says he saw Clark Kent"; you need some other reification ontology to say "Jimmy said 'I saw Superman'". Drew and I have both proposed such more-distant reification schemes.
sandro: My sense is that Drew has largely changed his mind about this issue since writing this (wonderful, wonderful) email. There he worries that reification is "used up", but now it's clear that we can have lots of different kinds of reification, so they can never be used up.
sandro: Yes, normal RDF reification does NOT quote the symbols. You're saying "Jimmy says he saw superman" which means the same thing as "Jimmy says he saw Clark Kent"; you need some other reification ontology to say "Jimmy said 'I saw Superman'". Drew and I have both proposed such more-distant reification schemes.
sandro: My sense is that Drew has largely changed his mind about this issue since writing this (wonderful, wonderful) email. There he worries that reification is "used up", but now it's clear that we can have lots of different kinds of reification, so they can never be used up.
AaronSw: GNUpdate uses their own RDF package format as a generalization of RPMs, Debs and such.
sbp: document that is retrieved using HTTP and that address. Why would anyone thing it represents a person?"""
sbp: I'm really not sure how that can be gathered from the (obsolteted) RFC 1738...