<snip/> >> This still does not answer the question why RIF should introduce its own >> ontology vocabulary. > > The reason is very simple. In this way RIF will have a standard (from the > object-oriented point of view) minimalistic theory of class hierarchies. > Any other theory that has its own subclass mechanisms (like RDF) can be > hooked up to RIF's theory using the simple rules like > > ?p # ?t :- ?p[rdf:type -> ?t] . > ?p ## ?t :- ?p[rdfs:subClassOf -> ?t] . > > Thus, the different theories that will be imported into different RIF > modules will be able to interoperate and integrate their class hierarchies > through the RIF's simple model. There are already two standard Semantic Web languages for the purpose of interoperating and integrating ontological information (including class hierarchies), namely RDFS and OWL. I argue that we should use these languages for expressing and integrating class information, rather than inventing a new one. I know that RDF Schema has some features which make the language overly complex. However, through syntactical restriction things can be made a lot easier (e.g. [1], which includes all the standard uses of the RDFS ontology vocabulary). Best, Jos [1] Sergio Muñoz, Jorge Pérez, Claudio Gutiérrez: Minimal Deductive Systems for RDF. ESWC 2007: 53-67. http://www.eswc2007.org/pdf/eswc07-munoz.pdf > > > --michael > -- Jos de Bruijn debruijn@inf.unibz.it http://www.debruijn.net/ ---------------------------------------------- As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. -- Albert EinsteinReceived on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 13:05:31 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:46 UTC