W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-mobile@w3.org > June 2002

Re: Validation in CC/PP

From: Tayeb Lemlouma <Tayeb.Lemlouma@inrialpes.fr>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:20:55 +0200
Message-ID: <020b01c20d4c$3a033700$0314c7c2@galapagos>
To: "Butler, Mark" <Mark_Butler@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <www-mobile@w3.org>
Mark thank you for your clear answer and for the given references

 >>What exactly are the "semantic advantages" of RDF?
 

There are a lot of papers that have been discussed the RDF semantic and its benefits

(for web semantic, information databases, etc.). The RDF WG of the W3C cites many

interesting articles about this (http://www.w3.org/RDF/)

 

I can say quickly that in an RDF application we can distinguish which data represents 

the semantic and which data are just for syntactic use. RDF can be used, for example, 

for semantic web and gives interesting results if server resources are stored in RDF. 

(An interesting application of RDF for images describing can be found in: 

http://www.tasi.ac.uk/2000/09/rdfmeta/ ). RDF ensures a simple way of expressing and 

processing a set of logical assertions. A logical assertion or a 'statement' can be written 

simply with giving the subject, the predicate and the object, e.g. The screen (subject) 

has the dimension of (predicate) 240x320 (object). Logical assertions included in a content 

(a document profile, or other) can be processed by the server and can be matched 

automatically with other logical constraints (such as the device constraints in terms of 

screen size, etc.) in order to resolve them and to give an adapted content.

 

The RDF serialization is another problem, it concerns the representation of RDF. The 

W3C have developed the RDF XML serialization: 

http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/ but this is not the unique serialization. 

Notation 3 is a plain text serialization of RDF developed by Tim Berners-Lee 

(http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3). (Some work consider that N3 is easier to use).     



>>different ontology representations onto a common framework developed by >>John Sowa[1].


I'll try to take a look on that.

Best regards

Tayeb*
----------
Tayeb Lemlouma
http://www.inrialpes.fr/opera/people/Tayeb.Lemlouma/index.html
Opera project
National Research Institute in Computer Science and Control (INRIA Rhône-Alpes, France )
Office B213, phone (+33) 04 76 61 52 81, Fax (+33) 04 76 61 52 07.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Butler, Mark" <Mark_Butler@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Tayeb Lemlouma'" <Tayeb.Lemlouma@inrialpes.fr>; "Butler, Mark" <Mark_Butler@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <www-mobile@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 11:51 AM
Subject: RE: Validation in CC/PP


> 
> Hi Tayeb
> 
> > Hi Mark and Art
> 
> > > Why don't you guys just re-do CC/PP in RELAX-NG or XML Schema :-)
> 
> > I think that the use of RDF in CC/PP is very benefit thanks to 
> > the semantic advantages of RDF. 
> 
> What exactly are the "semantic advantages" of RDF?
> 
> Recently I've been reading John Sowa's book on Knowledge Representation. In
> my opinion there is currently a misunderstanding that if we use RDF we
> automatically adopt a well founded semantics. This is simply not true:
> simply using RDF does not influence the semantics of data in any way as
> semantics are determined by observers i.e. how the RDF model maps on to the
> real world (in fact, there is a extreme position that says computers CAN
> ONLY process syntatic structures - for more details see John Searle's
> Chinese Room scenario[3]). The Model Theory for RDF has helped matters, but
> I don't see that the model theory is particularly helpful for CC/PP as CC/PP
> has it's own (unfortunately implicit) intepretation of what is meant by a
> CC/PP profile. 
> 
> Furthermore IMHO RDF is a rather confusing starting point for establishing
> well founded semantics as it operates below the ontology level i.e. RDF may
> be regarded as "machine code" for knowledge representation as there are a
> lot of similarities between RDF and conceptual graphs, a method of mapping
> different ontology representations onto a common framework developed by John
> Sowa[1]. Ideally we should be working at a higher level of abstraction e.g
> using DAML+OIL[2] as a basis for knowledge representation rather than RDF. 
> 
> For more details see
> 
> [1] Sowa, J. F. Knowledge Representation, Brooks/Cole, 2000. ISBN:
> 0-534-94965
> 
> [2] About DAML, http://www.daml.org/about.html
> 
> [3] Chinese Room arguement, http://www.ptproject.ilstu.edu/pt/chinovrv.htm
> 
> > The problem is in XML serialization of RDF. 
> > Why don't we think to adopt another XML serialization of RDF for
> > CC/PP, or for general purposes? 
> 
> Currently it is very difficult to introduce changes to CC/PP i) because we
> (the CC/PP Working Group) are constrained by the charter ii) we are at a
> stage in the process where it is not possible for people to submit comments.
> We are currently trying to move the CC/PP structure and vocabulary document
> to candidate rec, to overcome problem ii) but I would like to see problem i)
> addressed as soon as possible. 
> 
> regards
> 
> Mark H. Butler, PhD
> Research Scientist                HP Labs Bristol
> mark-h_butler@hp.com
> Internet: http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/marbut/
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 07:18:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 13:00:00 GMT