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

Re: Layering on what? was: Re: more on a same-syntax extension from RDF(S) to OWL

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 08:32:51 -0500
To: jonathan@openhealth.org
Cc: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020305083251N.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Subject: Re: Layering on what? was: Re: more on a same-syntax extension from RDF(S) to OWL
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:07:51 -0500

> Peter
> 
> >
> > Generally I try to use raw RDF, but occasionally, particularly if someone
> > else is so doing, I slip into an informal N-triples or N3 syntax.  My part
> > of the example above uses only parts of N3 that map well into RDF.
> >
> > The problem with layering on N3 is that you can't really layer on
> something
> > that has no semantics. N-triples, on the other hand, has both a reasonable
> > syntax and a decent semantics (or soon will).  However, N-triples is
> really
> > nothing more than RDF.

> Certainly, but:
> 
> [[
> john a A .
> john a B .
> entails
> john a _:1 .
> _:1 owl:intersectionOf ( A B ) .
> ]]
> 
> the "a entails b" (which seems like a perfectly reasonable way to write
> it -btw), how would one properly write _that_ in RDF?

Well, I don't know.  I would prefer not to write it in *any* RDF or
N-triples or N3 syntax, as I don't think that these things belong in the
language at all.

> ...
> 
> or the following:
> 
> 
> john a A .
> john a B .
> log:entails
>    _:1 owl:oneOf ( _:2 ) .
>    _:2 a owl:Restriction .
>    _:2 owl:onProperty rdf:type .
>    _:2 hasClassQ _:1 .
>    _:2 maxCardinalityQ "0" .
> 
> 
> I fear that the seemingly small nitty gritty deficiencies in the current
> version of RDF may come back to bite us (or OWL will simply develop its own
> parsers, query languages, database support etc.)

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree that the deficiencies in RDF will come back to
bite us.   However, I don't think that N3 is any better.  In fact, I
believe that N3 is *much* worse as a foundation.

In general I prefer not to use N3, for a whole bunch of reasons.
In fact, I would wholeheartedly go along with a blanket prohibition of N3
in this working group.

>  Jonathan

peter
Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2002 08:33:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:48 GMT