W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > January 2006

Re: RDF and OWL compatibility

From: Michael Sintek <sintek@dfki.uni-kl.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:48:30 +0100
Message-ID: <43C3D74E.6080309@dfki.uni-kl.de>
To: public-rif-wg@w3.org

Christopher Welty wrote:
> public-rif-wg-request@w3.org wrote on 01/04/2006 02:35:50 PM:
>>Jos de Bruijn wrote:
>>>On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 18:21 +0000, Dave Reynolds wrote:
>>>>Michael Sintek wrote:
>>>>I agree that RDF compatibility requires support for quantification 
> over RDF 
>>>>properties. Whether this translates into a requirement for a 
> higher-order 
>>>>syntax for the rule language or into a requirement that the RDF 
> mapping 
>>>>should use some more straightforward "triple(s,p,o)" convention is a 
>>>>separate decision.
>>>I'm not sure whether support for quantification over RDF properties is
>>>required, but I can imagine it could be.
>>The query <s,?p,o> was only one example where higher order would be
>>needed for the "straightforward" mapping. 
> Correction: This is not higher order, though it appears so.  I made this 
> mistake myself many times.  That many rule systems do not support it is a 
> seperate matter (and one we shall strive to address).
>>The same problem arises for
>>queries of the form <s,rdf:type,?c> (i.e., asking for all classes
>>of a given instance). If you map triples of the form
>><s,rdf:type,c> to c(s), you again need higher order.
> Again, you need to do something, yes.  But it is not a-priori higher 
> order.

I guess we need a clarifying entry in our glossary
on higher-orderness and esp. the differences between syntactic and
semantic higher-orderness, the relationship of syntactic h-o
and meta-modeling, etc.

I created the repsective glossary page (still empty!):


Feel free to fill it with meat :-)


Michael Sintek -- DFKI GmbH, Kaiserslautern
http://www.michael-sintek.de -- sintek@dfki.uni-kl.de
phone: +49 631 205-3460 -- fax: +49 631 205-4910
Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2006 15:48:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:36 UTC