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

Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document)

From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:12:35 +0100
Message-ID: <3C6B7F83.2D1CE317@cs.vu.nl>
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Jim Hendler wrote:

> Umm, I think the *next* step is to get some people working on some
> specific proposals - not to have a general discussion of approach, we
> need to have specific proposals on the table to discuss and move
> through.

Jim,

I think we are already close to this:

The layering document lays out 4 options.

1.Same-syntax semantic extension:
2.Syntax and semantic extension
3.Same-syntax, but diverging semantics
4.Differing syntax and semantics

Each of options 2-4 could be realised without further ado,

Option 2 would lead to "extraordinarily-complex and difficult patterns of reasoning",
so is out.

I get the impression option 4 is not really serious (it basically ignores RDFS).

These leaves 1 and 3.

Option 3 has the nice feature that we can use RDF to reason about OWL syntax. 

option 1 is very nice but could only be chosen if at least one of the following fixes was made to RDF(S):
1a move rdf:type to the meta-theory
1b stratify RDFS 
1c allow for un-asserted triples in RDF
(and perhaps 1a and 1b are the same if someone could explain it to me)

Looks like the next steps would be to get a sounding from RDF Core on 1a-c.
If these are all out, we now where we stand.
If at least one of these could be in, we have to choose between 1 and 3.

Frank.
   ----
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 04:15:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:47 GMT