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: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:54:33 -0500
To: hendler@cs.umd.edu
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020213125433T.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Subject: Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of     longer version of layering document)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:39:03 -0500

> Frank - the problem is that 1-4 as you define them below are 
> APPROACHES, not yet proposed solutions to move on.  I mean we need to 
> figure out how we operationalize these approaches and move to 
> language features that support them.

Well, I believe that there already are proposed solutions using approaches
2, 3, and 4.

Approach	Proposal

2.Syntax and semantic extension

OWL - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jan/att-0061/01-swol.text

3.Same-syntax, but diverging semantics

DAML+OIL - http://www.w3.org/TR/daml+oil-reference

4.Differing syntax and semantics

OWL' - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jan/att-0061/02-swol.text

What more do you want before having a discussion of which approach to work

You may note that each of these approaches have (roughly) the same language
features.  In general, the characteristics of the language do *not* depend
on which approach is taken.  (Of course, the syntax details of the language
and the formal specification of the language *do* depend on which approach
is taken, but both of these can be largely ignored when discussing which
approach to take.)

> It is fine and good for the group to decide "We will have a XXX 
> syntax and YYY semantic extension" (or whatever), but that doesn't 
> say which things will be the same or different from current DAML+OIL 
> or why.  We clearly need to set philosophy as part of moving ahead, 
> but the "task force" I suggested yesterday will need to go through 
> D+O figuring out how we change it, if at all, to deal with the issues 
> we've been discussing -- I'm trying to be hard-nosed here and remind 
> everyone that we need to eventually get this all the way to language 
> features.
>   To date, I see nothing that specific on the table, and we need such.

Well, if the two documents I put together were not specific, then I don't
know what you want.

> For example - a differing syntax solution could be anything from 
> "chuck the entire DAML+OIL and start again from scratch using C++ 
> syntax" to "if we simply add the tag <OWL></OWL> around the OWL 
> equivalent of daml:class statements then everything works again"  -- 
> that's quite a range!  Also, it is complicated by the fact that some 
> of our reasoning may need to go like this:

>   If RDF were changed to allow XXX then our language works as is (or 
> with the following minor modification)
>   if not, then we need to drastically change our language to YYY (for 
> example, largely abandoning RDF syntax)
> which is the best way we could be able to communicate this sort of 
> thing back to an RDF WG (either Core or future RDF 2.0) for 
> consideration or joint solution.

It would, I suppose, be possible to state some changes to RDF(S) under
which each of the approaches could be considered to be an extension of


>   -JH

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 12:55:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:41 UTC