W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-rules@w3.org > July 2005

Re: Web Rule Language - WRL vs SWRL

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 22:10:51 -0400
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
Message-Id: <20050701021052.4AE29CB5D3@kiferserv.kiferhome.com>


Ian Horrocks wrote:
>
[snip]

I deleted most of the discussion, because it was already addressed in
another message or became pointless.

> On 30 Jun 2005, at 04:11, Michael Kifer wrote:
> 
> >
> > *Modulo the blank nodes. The post-facto RDF semantics treats blank 
> > nodes as
> >  head-existential, which is outside of LP. But there is another, 
> > LP-style
> >  semantics for blank nodes.
> 
> We seem to be back to discussing RDF with a different semantics than 
> the one it *actually* has. If we assume that it would be possible to 
> give RDF syntax an alternative LP style semantics, then we would have 
> two completely separate language towers, one based on RDF and the other 
> based on RDF-LP. This was *exactly* the point we were making in our 
> paper.

First, it is not too late to fix the mistakes in RDF. As far as I know, the
implementations of N3 don't respect the existential semantics of blank
nodes. And you kept saying in this thread that N3 is an RDF language.

Second, you never hesitate to place OWL as a whole (incl DL) on
top of RDFS, while you know that this is not the case.


	--michael  
Received on Friday, 1 July 2005 02:11:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:53:12 GMT