W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007

Question on RDFS3.0 (was Re: proposal - Fragments redux )

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:09:43 +0100
Message-ID: <474FD357.1010801@w3.org>
To: Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
CC: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Alan, Jim

(I changed the subject line and removed a direct reference to the ISSUE
to untangle the thread...)

I have a technical question/clarification on

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Fragments

As far as I know (but people who are much more familiar with the
reasoning algorithms than I am can prove me wrong) one of the issues
with OWL-Full is that OWL-Full allows statements on 'itself', so to say.
Ie, I can, in OWL-Full, make a statements on the core vocabulary of the
language itself (I can say that rdf:type is functional, for example).
Among other aspects, OWL-DL makes a strict separation of the core terms
and does not allow any statement changing their semantics (well, they do
not make sense in DL terminology).

I was wondering whether RDFS3.0 cannot include the same sort of
restrictions. Such a variant of OWL might be even easier to handle and
implement without loosing real functionality. Have you guys met any
applications in your practice that would exploit this self-definition
facilities?

Again, more savy people might prove me wrong in that this is not an
essential problems for, say, an RDFS3.0 reasoner; in which case this
mail is just an extra noise on the mailing list:-)

Thanks

Ivan


-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf


Received on Friday, 30 November 2007 09:10:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:27 GMT