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

Re: issue 5.10: a position statement

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 09:24:19 -0400
Message-ID: <04ad01c22f27$9770d760$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
To: <connolly@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

>
> In response to Dan's statement on his view of OWL, here is my view on RDF.
>
> WARNING:  The following message contains strong language and graphic
>   positions. :-)
>
>
> RDF is uninteresting, to me, on its own.
>
> RDF is only interesting inasmuch as it facilities progress in one of two
> areas:
> 1/ allowing XML data to be used in the Semantic Web, by providing an
> XML-compatible meaning for XML documents that can then be used in the
> Semantic Web;
> or
> 2/ building the interesting parts of the Semantic Web, by providing a
> simple underpinning for the other Semantic Web formalisms.
>
> If RDF cannot handle almost all XML documents or understand XML Schemas,
> then the first reason for RDF is gone.  If the use of RDF in the Semantic
> Web is so restricted that other formalisms cannot be built on top of it,
> then the second reason for RDF is gone.
>

I would word this differently -- but I agree with the general gist of what
you say, specificly in the importance of a datatypes solution that is
compatible with XML datatypes. In particular I am becoming very worried
about the direction that the RDF datatypes solution may be taking.

In particular the question posed:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2002Jul/0047.html

I'll let y'all read through the debate on this but for example:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2002Jul/0103.html

It really worries me that if given:

""
Test A:

   <Jenny> <ageInYears> "10" .
   <John>  <ageInYears> "10" .
"

we CAN'T conclude that ageInYears(<Jenny>) = ageInYears(<John>)
(e.g. see:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2002Jul/0094.html). Are we
then in big trouble -- alternatively will we need to forget the RDF
datatypes 'solution' and create our own?

and what I think would be an XML Schema compatible solution:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2002Jul/0102.html

In any case if this sort of thing won't step on OWL's toes then I suppose I
don't care _that much_ but I'd like some reassurance.

Jonathan
Received on Friday, 19 July 2002 09:30:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:51 GMT