- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:09:23 -0400
- To: Gerhard Wickler <Gerhard.Wickler@informatik.uni-stuttgart.de>
- Cc: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.at>, public-sws-ig@w3.org
On Jun 22, 2004, at 8:41 AM, Gerhard Wickler wrote: > > Good point. I agree that having RDF/XML as the content language (using > reification) looks like a good idea, especially because it answers my > semantics question, No, that it doesn't but it's tempting to thing it does is precisely why it's a bad idea, IMHO. > but I suspect two major problems here: > > 1. RDF/XML has no notion of variables in triples. Of course, this > could be fixed somehow, but some of the cleanlyness of this appraoch > would be lost along the way. > > 2. RDF/XML *essentially* allows for conjunctions of (positive ground) > triples, which does not provide for much expressiveness. Right, almost none. If we reifying, then we do have to make sure that we don't interfere with regular SWRL rules (or SWRL doesn't interfere with what we are doing). It's possible, but requires some extra coordination. But let's really not delude ourselves. Either approach requires *parsing* the representation into something else. Both approaches *encode*, but do not express, the formulas in RDF/XML. There's a school of thought that says put everything in triples and use rule like axioms to boostrap the "real" semantics. I'm not a member of that school. Shoving syntax into your domain is a PITA. Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2004 10:09:33 UTC