- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:40:39 -0500
- To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Aug 16, 2012, at 4:00 PM, David Wood wrote: > On Aug 16, 2012, at 14:20, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>>> >>> >>> Mutability only requires changes to the semantics if mutability is perceived as having semantic consequences. So a good place to start might be to ask anyone who thinks it does, to come up with an example involving mutability and entailment (or consistency). For example, if we have explicit time snapshots, then an inconsistency which appears when times can be inferred to overlap might be such an example. >>> >>>> Pat has said in the past that perhaps we should forgo a semantics for RDF given the widely divergent interpretations in the wild. I (and others) don't think we can or should just throw away the semantics, if for no other reason than OWL, RIF, etc, currently depend on them. >>> >>> Well, actually they don't. Both OWL and RIF have their own, normative, sematnics defined independently of RDF. >>> >> >> I cannot check it right now (I write this mail from my mobile) but as far as I remember the RDF compatible semantics of OWL 2 explicitly refers back to the RDF Semantics (of course the 2004 version) in its definiton. To be checked, though. > > OWL 2004 Semantics clearly references both RDF 2004 Concepts and RDF 2004 Semantics normatively [1]. Yes, but it also says that the "direct semantics" is normative for OWL and if there is any clash between that and the RDF-compatible semantics, then the direct semantics wins. So OWL can survive even if RDF semantics goes away. In fact, the OWL specs could be rewritten much more simply if RDF had no semantics at all. I think something similar is true for RIF, but Sandro can speak to that with more authority. Pat > > Regards, > Dave > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/#references-normative > > >> >> Ivan >> >> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 >>> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office >>> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax >>> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile >>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 21:41:11 UTC