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: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 17:36:27 -0400
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
Message-Id: <20050701213628.E405519E75F@kiferdesk.lmc.cs.sunysb.edu>


> Ian Horrocks wrote:
>
> On 1 Jul 2005, at 03:10, Michael Kifer wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > 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.
> 
> Interesting. It seems that OWL and RDF are either:
> 
> a) useless, because no one understands them and/or can use them 
> correctly, or
> b) broken, and need to be "fixed".
> 
> It is good that your position on this is now clear.

This is an interesting statement. Given your choice of words,
it looks to me more like a libelous aspersion than an inference
from anything that I said.


	--michael  
Received on Friday, 1 July 2005 21:36:35 GMT

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