W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > July 2001

Re: EARL In RDFS(FA)

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 15:11:16 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20010713145922.00b06100@localhost>
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Sean,

I got to page 7 of that article.  Way over my head at this point.  What I 
got out of it is that there is a "layer problem" which I'm not exactly sure 
what that means but that it originates with RDFS and is therefore carried 
on in DAML+OIL (since it builds on RDFS).

Good article, I learned a lot from what I read.  Good over view of the 
different layers of the architecture.

Do you  know if RDFS(FA) is being considered by the RDF groups?

Could you please explain the differences between the EARL schema expressed 
in RDFS versus RDFS(FA)?

Where do MStatements, LStatements, LClass, etc come from?  What does that mean?

Also, I just realized that RDFS is a Candidate Recommendation - is that 
true?  It's been there since March 2000...??  (looking through the TR page: 
www.w3.org/TR/)

I obviously don't know how this would fit in with the Abstract Syntax 
proposed by Jon Borden.

help...
--w


At 10:41 AM 7/10/01 , Sean B. Palmer wrote:
>The file at [1] is an attempt at expressing the EARL schema in the
>newly proposed RDFS(FA) metamodelling architecture [2], by Pan and
>Horrocks.
>
>A few comments:-
>* rdf:Statement and the reification properties are not defined,
>probably because reification itself is the cause of much debate.
>Perhaps there would be MStatements and LStatements? EARL (and other
>ontologies) would use LStatements.
>* rdfs:Literal is an ltype of LClass in RDFS(FA), but RDF Core have
>not decided precisely what a literal is yet, only to say that there
>are things which are literals, and things which are literals which are
>lexical representations of some resource (e.g. [ rdf:value "abc" ]).
>* In defining a new type of property, I could only guess that it is an
>lsubClassOf LProperty. It seems to make sense that way because we are
>defining an ontology here.
>
>I wonder how RDFS(FA) will fit in with the Abstract Syntax proposed by
>Jon Borden et al. [3]?
>
>[1] http://infomesh.net/2001/07/earl/0.95fa.n3
>[2]
>http://img.cs.man.ac.uk/jpan/Zhilin/download/Paper/Pan-Horrocks-rdfsfa
>-2001.pdf
>[3] http://www.openhealth.org/RDF/RDFAbstractSyntax
>
>--
>Kindest Regards,
>Sean B. Palmer
>@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
>:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
tel: +1 206.706.5263
/--
Received on Friday, 13 July 2001 15:01:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:39 GMT