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

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

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 10:44:32 -0500
Message-ID: <003201c1c45c$a9a9d700$0301a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
To: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

> Well what I think that all this points out is the difficulty of writing
> things in this way.  In particular, you have to be *very* careful how
> you label what you are doing.
> Note that you said that it doesn't *entail*, which is a semantic
> relationship.  I pointed out that it does *entail*, which it does.  Your
> rules won't infer it, as they are incomplete.
> I think that it would be much better if everyone using N3 refrained from
> using log:entails as the predicate in rule.  It would be even better if
> they refrained from using log:implies, log:Truth, and other such
> without pointing to a readable description of what they meant by such
> properties.
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research

Perhaps an MT for N3 would be useful. One of the major benefitts of N3 over
RDF (including N-Triples) is the simple ability to write down a set of
statements _without asserting them_. I have a hunch that if RDF were able to
do that, then much of the layering issues would either go away or at least
be more easily solvable. Short of that we are stuck with the real issues you
are raising.

Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2002 10:05:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:42 UTC