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

Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 20:28:59 -0500
Message-Id: <p0510153fb8ed0b198b65@[]>
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.

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 21:29:02 UTC

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