chimezie: Go to about:config
chimezie: Enter (in the filter) "network.http.accept.default"
chimezie: Modify and remove the entry for application/rdf+xml;q=...
chimezie: Or modify the value if you insist on confusing endpoints which do not know what to do in this situation
chimezie: Enter (in the filter) "network.http.accept.default"
chimezie: Modify and remove the entry for application/rdf+xml;q=...
chimezie: Or modify the value if you insist on confusing endpoints which do not know what to do in this situation
chimezie: "This document is a request to the community of producers and consumers of RDF to follow certain practices around the use and resolution of URIs."
sbp: Sandro back in 2002 on what kind of logic CWM uses. Apparently he's saying that under one condition it is as expressive as datalog, and under another condition it's as expressive as horn logic.
sbp: Raises much bigger underlying questions about how CWM is designed (is it meant to be a FOPL engine?), whether it behaviourally matches its design (does it actually implement FOPL properly?), whether it's replicable (if it isn't meant to be FOPLing, then what?), and whether it's designed properly for the Semantic Web (does it need to do FOPL?).
TedThibodeauJr: Obviously [sbp is] no expert at the sharp end of logic, but I do know a thing or two about the practical use of CWM and the way that RDF APIs work, so I'm very interested in the replicability question. If someone wants to re-implement CWM properly, at the moment they can't really do so.
sbp: To some extent it doesn't matter as long as CWM is useful, but CWM has also proven to be highly buggy over the years and people actually kinda fear it somewhat, because of the way it's designed and underspecified in its design. Some of the early intuitions, about log:forAll and so on, are now regarded as wrong; whereas others, such as the internal model of scoping, have been left in when perhaps they shouldn't've been.
hendler: There is a new paper coming soon on the semantics of N3 in a more operational way -- I was looking for a pointer from Dig or arxiv but couldn't find it
hendler: will try to get it posted at dig
sbp: (Thanks, jhendler!)
sbp: I might come to regret this given that where we had N3/CWM query we now have SPARQL, and soon where we had log:implies we're going to have RIF; and in both cases I'm more of a fan of CWM's doggedly practical, if eccentric, approach.
sbp: On the flip side, perhaps that's all the more reason to make CWM a bit more robust. Retain the practical, drop the eccentric.
sbp: On the whole FOPL, vs. Horn, vs. etc. question, the RIF-WG conformance section in their charter is quite fun.
hendler: http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2004/12/24-digpubs.html now contains a pointer to the paper
hendler: N3Logic: A Logic Framework for the WWW (Berners-Lee et al 07 - to appear)
TedThibodeauJr: Indicated in Fuxi mailing list (will align with N3Datalog)
TedThibodeauJr: Obviously [sbp is] no expert at the sharp end of logic, but I do know a thing or two about the practical use of CWM and the way that RDF APIs work, so I'm very interested in the replicability question. If someone wants to re-implement CWM properly, at the moment they can't really do so.
sbp: To some extent it doesn't matter as long as CWM is useful, but CWM has also proven to be highly buggy over the years and people actually kinda fear it somewhat, because of the way it's designed and underspecified in its design. Some of the early intuitions, about log:forAll and so on, are now regarded as wrong; whereas others, such as the internal model of scoping, have been left in when perhaps they shouldn't've been.
hendler: There is a new paper coming soon on the semantics of N3 in a more operational way -- I was looking for a pointer from Dig or arxiv but couldn't find it
hendler: will try to get it posted at dig
sbp: (Thanks, jhendler!)
sbp: I might come to regret this given that where we had N3/CWM query we now have SPARQL, and soon where we had log:implies we're going to have RIF; and in both cases I'm more of a fan of CWM's doggedly practical, if eccentric, approach.
sbp: On the flip side, perhaps that's all the more reason to make CWM a bit more robust. Retain the practical, drop the eccentric.
sbp: On the whole FOPL, vs. Horn, vs. etc. question, the RIF-WG conformance section in their charter is quite fun.
hendler: http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2004/12/24-digpubs.html now contains a pointer to the paper
hendler: N3Logic: A Logic Framework for the WWW (Berners-Lee et al 07 - to appear)
TedThibodeauJr: Indicated in Fuxi mailing list (will align with N3Datalog)