W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-rules@w3.org > June 2004

Re: ruleml and RDF

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 09:08:38 -0400
Message-Id: <200406031308.i53D8c60008243@roke.hawke.org>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: G.R.Wagner@tm.tue.nl, www-rdf-rules@w3.org


> > > This is like using the language of classical
> > > predicate logic, but assigning a non-classical (e.g. intui-
> > > tionistic) semantics 
> > 
> > Somewhat, but anyone doing that and not labeling their use
> > appropriately for their audience would surely be castigated.  In an
> > academic paper, imagining and discussing a language with the syntax of
> > RDF/XML but different semantics would be fine; doing so in a document
> > which offers an industry standard is not.
> > 
> >     -- sandro
> 
> I don't know if I follow this line of reasoning.  There is a very strong
> warning in the SWRL document that no RDF-compatible semantics for the SWRL
> RDF syntax is provided.  Is that not sufficient?

It says:
 
      6. RDF Concrete Syntax

      In this section we present an RDF concrete syntax for the
      rules. It is straightforward to provide such an RDF concrete
      syntax for rules, but the presence of variables in rules goes
      beyond the RDF Semantics. We do not yet know if the intended
      semantics of the resultant RDF graphs can be described as a
      semantic extension of RDF.  

Did I miss some stronger words somewhere?   That hardly seems like a
bright-yellow mangled-fingers sticker to me.....   (Okay, maybe
mislabeling your language isn't *that* bad, but still.)

> [The following is personal opinion, and in no way should be taken to be the
> official view of any other person or group.]
> 
> I am perfectly willing to junk the RDF syntax for SWRL and replace it
> with a comment to the effect that making SWRL a same-syntax semantic
> extension of RDF is problematic.  I personally don't find the SWRL RDF
> syntax useful.  As far as I am concerned, the only reasons for including
> the RDF syntax for SWRL in the document are to show that it is possible to
> have an RDF syntax for SWRL *and* that it is hard (or maybe impossible) to
> have an RDF syntax for SWRL that retains the RDF meaning for the syntax.

I understand.  Since we're restating our positions: I'd rather junk
the "RDF syntax" than have a broken RDF syntax like this, but I'd also
like to see a useful and correct one.   Unfortunately, I haven't had
time to press on with LX (my draft solution [1] [2]), so I don't
complain too loudly.

       -- sandro

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/08/LX/RDF/layering.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/08/LX/v3/paper
Received on Thursday, 3 June 2004 09:08:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:53:11 GMT