- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 16:57:10 +0100
- To: Jim Hendler <jhendler@darpa.mil>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
I'm not sure if the tone of trivialization here was intended... but I have a view that there are some useful things that can be done with an RDF-like language that fall short of the requirements of an ontology language, and that these might involve a meaningful level of semantics less-expressive than FOL. #g -- At 12:08 PM 5/21/01 -0400, Jim Hendler wrote: >At 11:58 AM -0400 5/21/01, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >>In defense of stripped-down RDF, there is nothing technically wrong with a >>logical formalism that can represent only positive ground triples. Such a >>formalism can certainly convey some useful semantic information. >> >>It is just that such a representation formalism cannot be used to >>*represent* anything more than positive ground triples. Using positive >>ground triples to encode a more-expressive formalism requires encoding, which >>requires a new semantics, defined on top of the semantics for the positive >>ground triples, and makes it essentially impossible to use the semantics >>for the positive ground triples to represent domain information. >> >>Peter F. Patel-Schneider >>Bell Labs Research > >In other words, if someone built an ontology language on top of an >RDF-like langauge we could do important things with it. Gee, why didn't I >think of that? > -JH > >Dr. James Hendler jhendler@darpa.mil >Chief Scientist, DARPA/ISO 703-696-2238 (phone) >3701 N. Fairfax Dr. 703-696-2201 (Fax) >Arlington, VA 22203 http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Monday, 21 May 2001 13:06:08 UTC