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

Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 29 Apr 2002 09:11:47 -0500
To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1020089508.26978.17.camel@dirk>
On Thu, 2002-04-25 at 07:24, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples
> Date: 23 Apr 2002 10:57:55 -0500
> 
> > On Tue, 2002-04-23 at 10:44, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> [...]
> > If this is the proposed solution, this can already
> > be done with RDF core specs as written, no? What are we
> > asking RDF Core to do/add/change?
> 
> I do not believe that the two-file solution is compatible with RDF, in that
> it treats some files as RDF syntax but not having a meaning compatible with
> RDF semantics.

Hmm... I'm not sure what that means; probably because I don't
understand how the two-file solution works.

>  If WebOnt is not required to retain compatibility with RDF,

It's expected to, but not required to; everything's negotiable, but
the more we differ from expectations, the more parties we have
to negotiate with.

> then please let me know immediately as I can then start working on a WebOnt
> language that is not compatible with RDF.

It sounds like you're asking about the charter; the charter is less
relevant now than the decisions taken by the WG itself:

RESOLUTION: The meaning of an OWL document is conveyed in the RDF graph

RESOLUTION: All RDF/XML documents that are equivalent under the RDF
Recommendation are equivalent OWL exchange documents

RESOLUTION: The exchange language for OWL is RDF/XML 
  -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf2.html#L3748

> [...]
> 
> > So in this case, how does WebOnt-entialment work? How do we come
> > to the relevant conclusion?
> 
> Well, in whatever way we want to, of course.

I don't see how the RDF Core WG could be expected to evaluate
the costs and benefits of that.

>  In particular, the WebOnt
> language would then be free to assign whatever meanings it wants to the
> constructs in the .ont files.  Of course, having the .ont files be RDF
> syntax has its own costs, but at least there is a way forward.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
office: tel:+1-913-491-0501
mobile: mailto:connolly+pager@w3.org
Received on Monday, 29 April 2002 10:11:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:49 GMT