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

RE: DAML+OIL (March 2001) released: a correction

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:14:19 -0700
Message-Id: <v0421010cb6ee9ab68698@[]>
To: Peter Crowther <Peter.Crowther@melandra.com>
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> > From: Jim Hendler [mailto:jhendler@darpa.mil]
> > DAML+OIL did not have authority to change anything in RDF or to
> > otherwise impact the RDF spec except by example.
>Jim has (as usual) got right to the heart of the problem.  Feedback between
>designers of different architecture layers is essential if you want to
>create a coherent architecture.  So far, the sequence has been that RDF has
>taken XML as a given, and DAML has taken RDF as a given --- feed-forward
>with no feedback.  In fact, both XML and RDF are subject to periodic
>revision, but there hadn't been the time and experience of using them at the
>time the initial versions were formalised (obviously!).  That experience is
>now starting to accrue.
>I think two interesting questions can be posed here:
>1) How could RDF be changed/augmented/better documented to make it a firmer
>base on which to build DAML+OIL?

Or indeed for any other languages for expressing content. No doubt 
there will be others.

>2) How could XML be changed/augmented/better documented to make it a firmer
>base on which to build RDF?
>... and, I guess, (3) is there any chance of these changes happening?  (3),
>at least, would be helped by keeping the dialogue constructive; but (1) and
>(2) require constructive criticism of those existing standards in the light
>of practical experience.  For example, could the appropriate parts of the
>Fikes & McGuinness paper be used within the next revision of RDF to provide
>that clear semantics that many within DAML+OIL wish to see?

I would suggest that the DAML+OIL model-theoretic semantics is a much 
more useful (and certainly more compact) style of semantic 
specification. The axiomatic 'semantics' is not in fact a semantics: 
it is a transliteration into yet another formalism, one that also 
requires a semantic theory to give it any formal meaning. Such 
translations, while often useful, are always hostage to the semantic 
theory of the target language.

Pat Hayes

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Monday, 2 April 2001 17:12:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:38:20 UTC