W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2007

Re: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer Cake

From: John F. Sowa <sowa@bestweb.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:34:41 -0400
Message-ID: <46AF80C1.4020407@bestweb.net>
To: Valentin Zacharias <Zacharias@fzi.de>
CC: phayes@ihmc.us, ivan@w3.org, juanfederico@gmail.com, semantic-web@w3.org

Valentin,

The semantic foundation for RDF and OWL is consistent with the
model-theoretic foundation for Common Logic.  Any rule language
that is consistent with RDF and OWL must be consistent with
that same model-theoretic foundation.

VZ> In their own words [1]: "A dialect is a rule language with
 > a well-defined syntax and semantics. This semantics must be
 > model-theoretic, proof-theoretic, or operational in this order
 > of preference."
 >
 > [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-core/

That is not a coherent definition.  What it implies is that the
rules have no consistent semantics.

VZ> Which also is probably the reason for the "misplacement" of
 > the unified logic box - there is no (known) unifying logic for
 > the union of these formalisms.

If they allow that loophole, they destroy any chance of
interoperability.  Why on earth would anyone define a
"Rule Interchange Format" that allows different systems
to interpret the rules in inconsistent ways?

There is a simple solution to this problem:  Send the RIF
committee back to the drawing board until they agree to
a coherent definition.  If they can't agree, then just say
that RIF is deprecated for use in systems that are required
to be interoperable.

John Sowa
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 18:34:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:17 GMT