- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 12:22:28 -0400 (EDT)
- To: bparsia@isr.umd.edu
- Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 10:05, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> I agree entirely with Bijan here.
To be more explicit.
1/ I believe that this group should try to identify the issues that need to
be resolved.
2/ I believe that there are only a small number of these issues.
3/ I believe that each of these issues have reasonable initial solutions
that have already been proposed in the context of the semantic web.
4/ I believe that there are second, more general, solutions to many of the
issues and that these have also been proposed in the context of the
semantic web.
5/ I believe that general solutions to most (all?) of these issues have
so far eluded the best attempts of humankind, and I am not optmistic
that they will be solved in my lifetime.
6/ I believe that one of the issues that needs to be resolved is what
information is implicit in the use of a URI reference with optional
fragment identifier, particularly in the case where removing the
fragment identifier results in the URI that can be used to retrieve an
RDF (or OWL) document.
7/ I believe that the initial solution to the above issue is that there is
no information implicit in the mere use of *any* URI reference,
including URI references like rdf:type.
8/ I believe that a second solution to the above issue is that in some
contexts there are a few URI references and (not a few) other constructs
whose mere mention carries implicit information. These URI references
and constructs include rdf:type, rdfs:Class, Class(...),
restriction(...), etc.
9/ I believe that a related issue is how to go beyond this potentially very
sparse notion of implicit information.
10/ I believe that an initial solution to this related issue is that
systems may choose to use the information obtained by retrieving a
document (see document meaning issue) available at the URI that results
from removing the fragment identifier from a URI reference.
11/ I believe that a second solution to this related issue is that the
information implicit in owl:imports URI references or imports(...)
constructs includes the information obtained by retrieving a particular
document.
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2003 12:22:41 UTC