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

RE: RDF semantics: applications, formalism and education

From: Peter Crowther <Peter.Crowther@melandra.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:45:02 +0100
Message-ID: <B6F03FDBA149CA41B6E9EB8A329EB12D05A0FE@vault.melandra.net>
To: "'Danny Ayers'" <danny@panlanka.net>
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> From: Danny Ayers [mailto:danny@panlanka.net]
> <- Well, we certainly need some framework, to be sure.

> This is surely the point - and we have one, however 
> imperfect, in the form of RDF.


> The alternatives
> then are 1. to kill RDF and/or 2. create an altogether new 
> framework and/or 3. extend RDF to make it do what we want.

I'd add (4) AMend RDFS to make it do what we want.

> 3. would seem to be the least bad/most likely option - add 
> functionality in
> the form of external schemas, if need be gaffer (duct) tape in
> characteristics from different domains (calculi/algebras 
> whatever - any volunteers for the Chinese Room?)

These can only be added if the core is sufficiently expressive and flexible
to allow them to be added.  Pat, Peter and others seem to be pointing out

- RDFS is not sufficiently flexible, as it predefines a particular
world-view that is inconsistent with the required exensions; it requires
amendments before it is useful, and the amendments will almost certainly
break existing systems.  It's also unclear to me whether a version of RDFS
could be created that would be useful without (a) reducing it to RDF or (b)
specifying a particular logic --- Help?  Anyone?

- RDF is not sufficiently expressive, as a pure RDF reader that doesn't
understand the extensions for (for example) negation may make incorrect
deductions about the information saved by a more expressive system such as a
description logic.  This means it's impossible for less-expressive systems
to pick crumbs from the more expressive ones --- which was, I believe, one
of the ideas behind RDF.

		- Peter
Received on Monday, 9 April 2001 08:39:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:34 UTC