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

Re: DAML+RDFS: potentials for simplifications?

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:00:23 -0800
Message-ID: <013a01c178ff$b841d400$657ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: <Joachim.Peer@unisg.ch>, "Jeen Broekstra" <jbroeks@cs.vu.nl>
Cc: <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
From: "Jeen Broekstra" <jbroeks@cs.vu.nl>
To: <Joachim.Peer@unisg.ch>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: DAML+RDFS: potentials for simplifications?

> On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 Joachim.Peer@unisg.ch wrote:
> > ==> implications of RDF for flexible (i.e. upgrade-able)
> > software agents: the core question for me is, if RDF
> > enables some kind of generic extension framework for
> > software agents.
> >
> > it would be cool to be able to "upgrade" software agents
> > simply be importing an extension module which (in your
> > case) could  contain:
> > - a number of RDF triples (representing axioms of a higher
> > level ontology schema like daml+oil)
> > - a number of RQL queries, that provide some kind of
> > inference patterns.
> >
> > is this the vision you are working on?
> To be honest I am mostly working on getting the thing to
> properly grok RDF Schema :)
> However, in thinking about upgrading to DAML+OIL support I
> had mostly thought of hard-coding its semantics in some
> fashion, and not adding it flexibly in the way you suggest.
> For me the benefit of having DAML+OIL expressed in RDF is in
> the fact that I can add support for DAML+OIL in a gradual
> fashion, in the meantime having a tool that can at least
> partially understand it. Sesame already understands RDF
> Schema semantics, and I can (hopefully) gradually extend its
> model to incorporate DAML+OIL primitives.
> 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.

Sure, it's feasible!   Follow the database records to where the rules are
coded in a language that is understood by your programs.  Here, this is one
way you could do it:


> RDF does not provide enough expressiveness to represent
> axioms. How would you encode the DAML+OIL language axioms in
> RDF, in such a way that a software agent that _doesn't_
> understand DAML+OIL can interpret them?

This can be done too.  Define some more vocabulary in a schema that extends
the DAML ~language~.  RDF notation is quite capable of this.  Want me to
show you how?

CC: SUO http://suo.ieee.org/
Seth Russell
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2001 13:03:09 UTC

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