- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 20:28:59 -0500
- To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
>Pat Hayes wrote: > >> Let me make a concrete proposal. >> >> 1. There is no change at all to RDF, and the RDF core WG is relieved >> of all requests to do anything about this matter. >> >> 2. Every OWL expression is a set of RDF triples. >> >> 3. OWL introduces a special class name owl:Dark (which can be an >> rdfs:Class). Any assertion of the form > >[....] > >This sounds attractive. What is the catch? The only catch is that the OWL meaning of an RDF graph isn't quite the same as the RDF meaning. That will bother some people, but I think it is inevitable in some form whatever we do. At least this provides a way to say this in RDF syntax and in a way that does make some RDF sense. >I am not entirely sure how to ask >the following: but would this follow the 'rules' of RDF, that is, will DanC >(as an example) complain Im waiting to find out.... >that the meaning of the RDF graph of an OWL >ontology and the OWL meaning won't 'clash'? Somehow this has the _effect_ of >unasserted triples ... so what gives? Nothing gives. This is exactly the point, to get the effect of unasserted triples without as it were bothering RDF. (And thereby avoiding the ridiculous political crisis that this has erupted into.) With these conventions, OWL can do it itself, using RDF syntax. It still makes perfect sense as RDF, but it doesn't have quite the same ontological commitments, is all. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 21:29:02 UTC