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

Re: DAML+RDFS: potentials for simplifications?

From: Jeen Broekstra <jbroeks@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:51:29 +0100 (CET)
To: Wolfram Conen <conen@gmx.de>
cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0112041026380.11759-100000@flits.cs.vu.nl>
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Wolfram Conen wrote:

> > I am also unsure whether this idea of flexible addition
> > of expressivity is feasible at all. The problem to me
> > seems to be that you need a starting point that is
> > itself at least as expressive as the language that you
> > are trying to "learn", which kind of defeats the purpose
> > of the undertaking.
> Hm, what exactly is the purpose of the undertaking?

Ok, just to try and make my train of thought clear: I had
the impression that the idea was to allow agents to "learn"
to speak DAML+OIL by having them interpret axioms embedded
in RDF. The main benefit of this approach would be the
avoidance of the effort of having to hard-code DAML+OIL
semantics in the agent.

My (admittedly knee-jerk) reaction was that hardcoding an
agent that would be able to do this would require at least
as much (if not more) effort.

> Let me point out a simple possibily: why don't we agree
> upon one (or a set of) "host formalism(s)" that gives us
> the expressivity required to develop RDF vocabularies and
> RDF-based applications easily and interchangably - perhaps
> taken out of the datalog (or Ur-datalog) family.

I'm going to ask a very naive question here: isn't this
exactly what DAML+OIL is trying to do? The whole point of
the OIL initiative was to invent not "Yet Another Ontology
Language" but a "common ground" in required expressivity,
allowing not only vocabulary definition, but also mapping
and translating between different formalisms using OIL as
the carrier. Don't we have our host formalism right here

I'm asking this not because I think you all overlooked it,
but because I'm trying to get my head wrapped around the
difference between OIL and what you are proposing here.


> We can, of course, continue to reinvent the wheel of
> logic for RDF*/RDFS/RDF++ anew and keep the whole
> SemWeb-(r)evolution stalked a bit longer ;-)

Well, it pays the bills, doesn't it? :)

> PS: of course, embedding axioms in RDF and "interpreting"
> RDF/RDFS inside of a host formalism, has been suggested
> earlier (Staab et al, Conen/Klapsing, I can give precise
> references if needed, simply send me an email),

If you mean the "Axioms are Objects, too" paper by Staab, it
might be of tangential interest to point out that that paper
was quite influential in the design of the OIL to RDFS


Jeen Broekstra                                     Vrije Universiteit
jbroeks@cs.vu.nl              Dept. of Mathematics & Computer Science
                                 de Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV Amsterdam
                                                      The Netherlands
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2001 04:51:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:37 UTC