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

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)
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0264.html

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/