W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: I can accept... (Was: Re: Objective 4.6: additional semantic knowledge)

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 14:31:50 -0500
Message-Id: <p06001f0fbccec239377b@[10.0.100.76]>
To: "Rob Shearer" <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

>The proposed rewording of my proposed rewording seems to be nothing but
>a removal of the reference to SWRL. I included that language in the list
>quite intentionally--I felt it was important to include a language that
>can be used to describe RDF models but does NOT necessarily have any RDF
>encoding.
>
>Why are we working so hard to make sure not to mention SWRL?

I'm all for mentioning it, but lets be careful to understand what 
that reference would mean. I don't think it is part of our charter, 
or a rational goal, to expect to get back references to rules 
themselves as responses to queries. That is, I don't think we should 
be querying SWRL rule-sets in the same way we query RDF graphs.  I 
think it does make sense, and could be part of our charter, to expect 
that an engine responding to an RDF query might use SWRL rules to 
help answer the queries, by 'connecting' a query to some RDF data 
source by applying SWRL rules. But since SWRL applies to OWL and OWL 
is interchanged using RDF, this would not require us to consider 
queries about languages which do not have RDF encodings.

I imagine that this distinction lies behind the classification of RDF 
and OWL as 'semantic languages' rather than 'rule languages' (??)

Pat

>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Kendall Clark [mailto:kendall@monkeyfist.com]
>>  Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 11:10 AM
>>  To: Rob Shearer
>>  Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
>>  Subject: I can accept... (Was: Re: Objective 4.6: additional
>>  semantic knowledge)
>>
>>
>>  On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 04:52:52PM -0700, Rob Shearer wrote:
>>
>>  > 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.
>>
>>  In the interests of making progress, I'm willing to accept Rob's
>>  version, above, of my original proposal.  In the current UC&R doc,
>>  my original is 4.6 and Rob's variant is 4.6a.
>>
>>  So, I'd be willing to accept a modest reworking of 4.6a:
>>
>>  Additional Semantic Information
>>
>>  It should be possible for knowledged encode din other semantic
>>  languages -- for example: RDFS, OWL, etc. -- to affect the results of
>>  queries about RDF graphs.
>>
>>  In fact, unless someone objects, I'd like to make that the language in
>>  the document and the version which we vote on at some point.
>>
>>  Best,
>>  Kendall Clark
>>
>>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 17 May 2004 15:31:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:19 GMT