W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > April 2001

Re: semantics status of RDF(S)

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 18:25:27 +0100
To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Message-Id: <OFE56D41DD.D1CFA48B-ON41256A21.005F4BB8@bayer-ag.com>

Peter,

Let's learn from each other. I perceive your comments as reasonable, but
to draw such conclusions seems at least a bit *fatalistic* to me ...

First of all, I have the picture of TimBL's semantic web architecture
http://www.w3.org/2000/Talks/1206-xml2k-tbl/slide10-0.html
before my mind, and in that picture we see RDF/RDFS (RDFCore) to be
a piece (of course it could be that you see another picture about which
we could talk after we have seen it) and of course we should also have
formal backup besides pictures :-)

> The impact of flaw number 1 is that any attempt to use RDF or RDFS without
> providing a separate semantics for its constructs is built on an unusable
> foundation.  The impact of flaw number 2 is that any attempt to use RDF or
> RDFS to represent proofs, etc., will have to provide its own constructs for
> most of the interesting information.

I've actually only one question:
what should be the least power of RDFCore to make the
other pieces (daml+oil, logic/proof) most reasonable?

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Sunday, 1 April 2001 12:25:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:38 GMT