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

RE: ruleml and RDF

From: Wagner, G.R. <G.R.Wagner@tm.tue.nl>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 16:28:24 +0200
Message-ID: <D0D13B0440FC1F4995BC4CD7F84A3A4201B9ED14@tmex2.campus.tue.nl>
To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>

> Sandro Hawke writes:
> In the team comment on SWRL [1] (which is the voice of
> the W3C staff, NOT the voice of W3C [ie the W3C member or
> "Director"]), I wrote:
> 
>       SWRL connects with RDF in two ways. The crucial connections is
>       that RDF graphs can be directly expressed in SWRL (using only
>       the obvious syntactic transformation) and they have exactly the
>       same meaning. 

Are you sure that this is the case?

It would require to assume OWL-Full, which doesn't seem to be very 
popular among OWLers.

Just one issue is the question if a class has a purely extensional
semantics, as in OWL-DL, or a kind of "intensional" semantics 
(allowing for two classes to be different although they have the
same extension), as in RDF and OWL-Full (and UML!).

This is a very fundamental issue, which does not depend on
the possibility of reification.

-Gerd
Received on Friday, 28 May 2004 10:28:27 GMT

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