W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Moving forward

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 03:20:10 -0400
Message-Id: <p0510151ab8d513e2f221@[]>
To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
>>  >I'm not sure what you mean by ``damage''.
>>  >
>>  >One way to go would be to
>>  >1/ ask for ``unasserted'' stuff in RDF
>>  >2/ place restrictions on the form of the DAML+OIL constructs
>>  >This *might* result in a viable solution, depending on how much of a
>>  >is made to RDF.  The change to DAML+OIL here would be
>>  >1/ the syntax
>>  >2/ the model theory
>>  I am confident that this will be a viable solution. Existing code
>>  does this, in effect, and seems to work reliably, and there is a
>>  clear strategy for providing a coherent semantics. I do not even
>>  think that it will require significant changes to DAML+OIL; the only
>>  extra requirement is that the daml:list triples be unasserted in RDF.
>>  It has some risks, the chief of which is that legacy RDF code which
>>  does not respect the 'unasserted' distinction might produce OWL
>>  inconsistencies. I think this is at worst an interim problem which
>>  will go away by itself, but we should consider it carefully.
>-actually- current RDF code should interpret rdf:parseType="daml:collection"
>as the same as rdf:parseType="Literal" and ought make no inferences about
>the contents. This is the same as TimBL's use of "log:quote" to represent N3
>contexts in RDF/XML.

That use is illegal RDF right now. N3 misuses RDF all over the place.

>My strong preference would be to treat whatever is in "daml:collection" as
>unasserted, even when expanded into daml:List.

That makes sense, but it requires some changes to RDF. Right now, 
every RDF triple is asserted: there is no provision for including a 
triple in a graph without it being asserted. That is what we need to 

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Monday, 15 April 2002 10:57:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:43 UTC