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

Re: proposal for last session of July face-to-face (new issues?)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 19 Jun 2002 09:29:02 -0500
To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1024496943.25534.47.camel@dirk>

On Wed, 2002-06-19 at 09:05, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> These leave three portions of OWL unspecified:
> M1 What is an OWL KB in triple form, and, more importantly, what
>    collections of triples are not OWL KBs?

I expect all collections of triples are OWL KBs; that's
the way I read the DAML+OIL Note. It looks like a
new issue belongs on our issues list.

> M2 What is the translation from the abstract syntax to triples?

That assumes there's an abstract syntax other than triples;
I don't expect there to be one. (excpet perhaps
for various presentation syntaxes).

> M3 What is the formal meaning of an OWL KB?

Whatever we specify it to be, no?

> Jeremy Carroll has made a proposal that includes the idea that not all
> collections of triples are OWL KBs.  I strongly support this idea and,
> moreover, *propose* that the definition of just what constitutes an OWL KB
> in triple form be specified as the result of a mapping from the abstract
> syntax, something like the mapping in
> 	http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/translation.html

There's also my proposal to do a model theory straight from
the triple abstract syntax:

  * layering (5.3,5.10): a same-syntax model theory
  Dan Connolly (Thu, May 30 2002)

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2002 10:28:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:45 UTC