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

RE: ISSUE: Malformed DAML+OIL Restrictions

From: Smith, Michael K <michael.smith@eds.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 09:11:18 -0500
Message-ID: <B8E84F4D9F65D411803500508BE322140DE83B04@USPLM207>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Jim,

> Mike-
>  The group resolved that the RDF/XML document would be the exchange 
>  syntax, not the triples.
>   -JH

So what does 'underlying syntax' mean?  Looking at the minutes 
(http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf2.html) I read

 Decisions about on how to move forward with syntax (14:16Z)

 PROPOSED:

  1 that there is a presentation syntax and an underlying syntax and a
transform 
  2 some form of presentation syntax is requirement 
  3 RDF is underlying syntax 
  4 that the presentation syntax is in XML 

  last point fails to gain consensus.

 RESOLVED:

  1 that there is a presentation syntax and an underlying syntax and a
transform 
  2 some form of presentation syntax is requirement 
  3 RDF is underlying syntax 

The way I read this is that we have not yet determined a presentation syntax
and that RDF (which I assume means RDF triples) is the 'underlying' syntax.
I had assumed that meant interchange format.  Or are we just asserting that
it is a requirement that a translation from OWL to RDF be defined?

As far as I can see, this doesn't change the thrust of my argument.  Nothing
in this requires that OWL translate to all possible RDF triples.  And thus
we can arrange to avoid a requirement that OWL provide a semantic
interpretation that covers arbitrary RDF triples.

- Mike



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Hendler [mailto:hendler@cs.umd.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 9:42 PM
> To: Smith, Michael K; Peter F. Patel-Schneider; www-webont-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: ISSUE: Malformed DAML+OIL Restrictions
> 
> 
> At 10:38 AM -0500 5/17/02, Smith, Michael K wrote:
> >I went over some of this in my response to Jeremy a while back
> >
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0085.html
> >
> >The fact that the F2F decided triples would be the exchange 
> syntax does not
> >require that the definition of OWL syntax be given in 
> triples. It would seem
> >to permit a translation process, say from an XML-based OWL 
> syntax. And that
> >syntax could be more restrictive.  If OWL must accommodate 
> all triples, then
> >it must give an interpretation to all RDF, which is 
> something Peter is
> >trying to avoid.
> >
> >As far as I am concerned, "triples" are only marginally 
> syntax.  One point
> >of syntax is to help free the semantics from complicated 
> statements about
> >when a term is meaningless. 
> >
> >In propositional calculus, the 'meaning' of "A and and and 
> or B" doesn't
> >come up.  And it would not be a feature if it could.
> >
> >- Mike
> 
> Mike-
>   The group resolved that the RDF/XML document would be the exchange 
> syntax, not the triples.
>   -JH
> -- 
> Professor James Hendler				  
> hendler@cs.umd.edu
> Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
> Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  
> 301-405-6707 (Fax)
> AV Williams Building, Univ of Maryland		  
> College Park, MD 20742
> http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
> 
Received on Monday, 20 May 2002 10:11:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:50 GMT