- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 11:51:56 +0100
- To: "'Rob Shearer'" <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>, "'RDF Data Access Working Group'" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
-------- Original Message -------- > From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org <> > Date: 12 May 2004 00:53 > > I appreciate the effort to include OWL in the objectives > section, but I feel the current approach to these other > semantic layers is a bit short-sighted. Some people think > RDFS is neat, I think description logics (and OWL-DL) are > pretty spiffy, and others like rules languages like SWRL. In > time people may well come up with other ways of encoding > knowledge. Importantly, only a very few of these > languages/technologies have "structure" that can be sensibly > and canonically realized in RDF. > > I would simply recommend that we really address the "RDF as > data model for the semantic web" notion on which all these > other technologies are predicated. +1 to that characterisation of the problem space. > Some suggested text: > > 4.6 Additional semantic knowledge > It should be possible for knowledge encoded in other semantic > languages, such as RDFS, OWL, and SWRL to affect the results > of queries about RDF graphs.
Received on Thursday, 13 May 2004 06:55:52 UTC