W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > May 2002

Re: Layering OWL on RDF: the case for unasserted triples

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 16:46:27 -0400
Message-ID: <02ed01c2081b$12689c20$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "Guus Schreiber" <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>

Brian McBride wrote:


> At 15:57 30/05/2002 -0400, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> [...]
>
>
> >The OWL model theory itself remains an open issue and different members
of
> >the WG have different ideas about how this might be accomplished.
>
> Thanks Jonathan.  That's a comprehensive reply.
>
> I think I heard:
>
>    o Whether or not dark triples will be used by webont is still an open
> question

yes, since the OWL model theory has not been finalized, this is true
_however_ I should note that many of the folks, as noted by the strong
language I have quoted in the summary, are adamant that dark (I prefer the
term "unasserted") triples will be required regardless of how the final MT
looks. If dark triples are not provided, it may be a fair assessment, that
either:

1) unsolvable problems may prevent the WebOnt WG from producing an
acceptable model theory for OWL
2) the WG will never achieve consensus
3) the only way the WG will achieve consensus is by attrition

Now let me emphasize that none of the above would be a certainty, but that
the _risk_ would be real (indeed based upon the last 6 months discussion (2)
may happen regardless -- well you can read the webont archives yourself and
draw your own conclusions about what might happen).

>
>    o Never the less, webont are asking RDFCore to consider how dark
triples
> might be provided
>
> Did I hear right?
>

Yes. Despite the ongoing discussions, and taking into account the time
sensitive issues for RDFCore we felt it was important to give this action
item to you at this time.

Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 16:51:43 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:48:16 EDT