W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > March 2008

Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-81

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 06:15:40 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20080328.061540.125109777.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
Cc: schneid@fzi.de, alanruttenberg@gmail.com, public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-81
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:28:58 +0000

> 
> Michael Schneider wrote:
> 
> > I also want these advantages in RDF, not only in functional syntax. 
> > And for the aspect of semantical and computational complexity: The
> > way you suggest to encode negative assertions requires a pretty
> > bit of OWL language features (equivalence, intersection, nominals,
> > restrictions, and owl:Nothing). I believe a small rulebased sublanguage 
> > of OWL-Full will easily be out of play here.
> 
> Negative assertions seem to me to be well out of scope of the design
> of RDF, and unlikely to be implementable in an interoperable way in
> typical RDF systems. 

It would be interesting to see some views on what is the "scope of the
design of RDF", particularly in light of the work within the WG on RDFS
3.0 and the various statements that link N3 to RDF.

> I think your 'want' here is unreasonable - if you really want this
> expressivity then take the OWL baggage. 

What baggage would that be?

> Jeremy

peter
Received on Friday, 28 March 2008 10:24:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 28 March 2008 10:24:21 GMT