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

Re: DAML+RDFS: potentials for simplifications?

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:21:10 -0500
To: Joachim.Peer@unisg.ch
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Message-Id: <20011128112110N.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
First of all, I think that you are on a reasonable track.  The basic
conclusions that you make are correct.  However, there are some detail
problems, and you may not have gone far enough.  

In particular, your simplified syntax is little more than removing rdfs:
from some of the tags.  If you don't need to encode DAML+OIL in RDF
triples, then there are lots better syntaxes for languages like DAML+OIL.
For example, OIL (http://www.ontoknowledge.org/oil/) has an XML syntax
that has lots to recommend it. 

DAML+OIL was designed to have an RDF syntax.  Its model theory is based on
RDF triples but is not really very compatible with the new RDF model
theory, largely because triples are inadequate for carrying both structure
and meaning.  I would prefer a logic that kept closer to the RDF model
theory, but that had a syntax that was an extension of the RDF XML syntax.
Some of my concerns are voiced in a recent message I sent out to the
DAML+OIL joint committee
(http://www.daml.org/listarchive/joint-committee/0934.html).


Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2001 11:21:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:16:02 UTC