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

Re: editorial tweak to OWL semantics doc

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 17:46:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20021216.174636.37430694.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
Cc: horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk, www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Subject: Re: editorial tweak to OWL semantics doc
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:26:30 -0600

> >Hmm.
> >
> >Why shouldn't that go at the beginning of the RDFS-Compatible
> >Model-Theoretic Semantics section?  It appears to me that OWL/DL, when
> >written in N-triples,
> Not N-triples; say RDF triples.

Before I use the phrase ``RDF triple'' I would like to see a definition of
them.  I looked in Concepts and Abstract Syntax and was highly
underwhelmed.  ``An RDF triple contains three components, ....''  Sure, but
just *what* is an RDF triple?  Is it a triple, in which case why are the
components named?  Is it something else, like a data structure, in which
case just what sort of data structure is it?

I am unwilling to say that the (abstract) syntax of OWL contains elements
that can be *anything*.  How are these sorts of thing supposed to be

So, unless there is a *decision* of the working group, I am not going to
use RDF triples until their definition is cleaned up or at least until I
can understand just what is going on.

Received on Monday, 16 December 2002 17:46:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:49 UTC