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

Re: DAML+RDFS: potentials for simplifications?

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 12:25:07 -0600
Message-Id: <p05101001b83bfd4d512d@[]>
To: Jeen Broekstra <jbroeks@cs.vu.nl>
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 Joachim.Peer@unisg.ch wrote:
>>  You say, a result of the simplified syntax is, that a
>>  processor would need a "set of conventions". Yes, but how
>>  does this differ from the current situation?
>It doesn't, and I think we are touching upon the core here:
>by using a set of conventions (RDF!) that seems likely to be
>shared by a broader community we are increasing
>interoperability. Possibly at the cost of not having the
>most optimal model, but this is a typical result of a
>compromise. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
>>  Are you aware of any DAML interpreter which has no
>>  hardcoded set of DAML specific instructions?
>Yes. Any RDF parser for example. Or the RDF Schema query
>engine that we are currently building. Any RDF or
>RDFS-specific tooling in fact.

I think this answer is disingenuous. Any RDF parser can parse 
DAML+OIL , but it parses it as RDF, not as DAML+OIL. In order to 
'interpret' (which I take to mean, be able to draw valid conclusions 
from) the DAML+OIL, one needs to know more than just RDFS: one needs 
to know how the DAML+OIL syntax is encoded into RDF. For example, one 
needs to know that some of the RDF is asserted as part of a DAML 
assertion, but other pieces of RDF are assertions about the syntax of 
the DAML assertions.

>The OIL - RDFS relationship has been set up in such a way
>that compatibility works in both directions: any OIL spec is
>valid RDF Schema, and an RDF Schema is a valid OIL ontology.

In the very narrow sense of 'valid' which means 'can be processed 
without being rejected as syntactically incorrect'. Even in this 
sense, there are well-formed pieces of RDF that are not legal 
encodings of any DAML+OIL assertion.

>We have tried to layer OIL on top in such a way that as much
>knowledge as possible is captured within the original RDF
>Schema model, thus allowing "maximum" knowledge sharing with
>less semantically aware (read: RDFS-only) tooling.

Maybe that is true of OIL, but it is very arguable for DAML+OIL.

>That is
>the suspected added bonus, which I personally think will
>prove very valuable in a heterogeneous environment, where
>lots of different levels of expressiveness (from simple RDF
>to DAML+OIL) are required for different tasks.
>Btw, there is a paper which deals with this issue, which
>might interest you. The paper is from some time ago and
>deals with the original OIL rather than DAML+OIL, but the
>arguments still hold I think:
>     http://www.cs.vu.nl/~jbroeks/papers/www10.pdf
>>  take for example the definition of the unionOf-construct of DAML:
>>  <rdf:Property rdf:ID="unionOf">
>>    <rdfs:label>unionOf</rdfs:label>
>>    <rdfs:comment>
>>      for unionOf(X, Y) read: X is the union of the classes in the list Y;
>>      i.e. if something is in any of the classes in Y, it's in X, and vice
>>  versa.
>>      cf OIL OR
>>    </rdfs:comment>
>>    <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Class"/>
>>    <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#List"/>
>>  </rdf:Property>
>>  this definition tells an RDF aware application only half
>>  of the story... It tells nothing about the semantic
>>  implications of this construct. So if one wants to have a
>>  DAML aware agent, one will need to tell it explicitly what
>>  e.g "unionOf" means.
>True. But the RDFS-aware application will still know that
>there is a relation called UnionOf.

Right, but that is false in DAML+OIL. There is no such relation: that 
'relation' is part of the syntax. See Peter Patel-Schneider's recent 
postings to the joint committee and the subsequent discussions:

>It will know that which
>classes exist, it will know their instances and it will
>understand the subsumption relation.

On the contrary, it will have the wrong idea about which classes 
exist (compared to the idea that is encoded in the DAML+OIL 
assertions) and moreover there is no way to tell it which ones do 
exist, since RDFS is not currently capable of making the required 

Pat Hayes
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2001 13:25:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:38:23 UTC