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

Re: Moving forward

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:49:15 -0500
To: jonathan@openhealth.org
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020314194915M.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
I'm not sure what you mean by ``damage''.  

One way to go would be to
1/ ask for ``unasserted'' stuff in RDF
2/ place restrictions on the form of the DAML+OIL constructs
This *might* result in a viable solution, depending on how much of a change
is made to RDF.  The change to DAML+OIL here would be
1/ the syntax
2/ the model theory

Another way to go would be to
1/ use a syntax extension
This *would* result in a viable solution.
The change to DAML+OIL here would be 
1/ the syntax
2/ the model theory

A third way to go would be to 
1/ give up on a theory of classes
This *would* result in a viable solution.  The change to DAML+OIL would be
very small, formally, but, informally
2/ the role of classes would change

A fourth way to go would be to 
1/ use a different semantic relationship for inference
This *might* result in a viable solution.  The change to DAML+OIL would be
1/ how information is extracted from DAML+OIL KBs

There are other ways to go that I can imagine, and probably others that I
haven't considered.

Which of the above qualifies as the least ``damage''?  This depends almost
entirely on your view of what is important.

peter

PS:  ``*would*'' above indicates that I am quite sure that a reasonable
solution exists.  ``*might*'' above indicates that I am not convinced that
a reasonable solution exists.


From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Subject: Re: Moving forward
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:54:43 -0500

> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> > From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>
> > Subject: Moving forward
> > Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:30:11 -0500
> >
> > > It is really hard for me to believe that these semantic/layering
> problems
> > > are not solvable.
> >
> > I think that there are several examples that show that they are solvable.
> >
> > It is just that something has to be given up.  There are several of these
> > somethings, and there are different opinions on which one should go.
> >
> 
> Suppose we wish to do minimal damage to DAML+OIL, e.g. use RDF but given the
> fact that RDF is currently being revised by RDFCore, and given the
> assumption that OWL will be a good customer of RDF, we have some ability to
> request clarifications/perhaps changes.
> 
> What needs to be given up under these circumstances?
> 
> Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2002 19:50:00 GMT

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