Re: The Q model

Hi Peter,

* Peter F. Patel-Schneider
|
| I am puzzled why you say that if RDF can be transformed into Q with
| no loss of information then OWL/RDFS semantics can be ported to it.

Hmmm. I think probably you're reading more into this statement than I
intended by it. Clearly, RDF represented in Q is still the same RDF,
and so the same OWL/RDFS semantics will apply as when RDF is just
triples, but, as you note below, this will be a semantics that ignores
the two extra elements. 

| Both RDFS and OWL have a non-trivial semantics that may not survive
| the changes from simple statements to identified and situated
| statements very well.  Do you have a fully-worked-out version of
| RDFS and OWL in this arena?

No, I do not. I think I can see a way to take context into account,
but I don't have this worked out, and it's definitely possible that
taking the two extra elements into account will break it.
 
| Similarly, how do the RDF semantic conditions play into the story,
| particularly with the inclusion of contexts in the Q model?

I've not been able to work this out yet. This paper takes me to the
point where I have RDF and Topic Maps in a single model, but no
semantics for this unified model yet. One obvious next step is to
create a unified semantics based on this model.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >