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

RE: ISSUE: Malformed DAML+OIL Restrictions

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 16:13:32 -0400
Message-Id: <p0511170fb90f06197879@[10.0.0.17]>
To: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
At 9:11 AM -0500 5/20/02, Smith, Michael K wrote:
>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
>

Mike - At the f2f we decided that any presentation syntax would be 
non-normative.   I agree w/what you say above (i.e. OWL doesn't have 
to translate to all possible RDF triples), but I want to make sure 
we're not going back on what was already agreed upon.  We already 
have enough on our plates just defining the DAML+OIL-like syntax for 
the exchange documents without trying to achieve full consensus on 
the details of one or more other normative syntaxes. The model we 
proposed is that those wishing to propose non-normative syntax, such 
as Guus did with UML for "OWL lite", are welcome to do so - and that 
we will review them and consider them for these non-normative 
syntaxes to be included as appendices in our Working Draft.  (Also, 
note that we are assuming that any proposed syntax will also need an 
implementation to show it is mappable to the normative exchange layer)
  At the f2f the following non-normative syntaxes were discussed as 
possibilities:
  1) UML for Owl-lite
  2) N3
  3) an XML syntax
  4) a frame-like syntax (possibly same as 3)
and this was meant to be a non-exhaustive set.
  This is my understanding of what we decided and is reflected in the 
resolutions taken at the f2f.
  Also, we were explicit that we didn't have consensus for a normative 
XML syntax as a product of this working group
  -Jim H.

Text of resolutions from f2f in Amsterdam (see Amsterdam f2f page 
linked to webont WG page)

>RESOLUTION: The meaning of an OWL document is conveyed in the RDF graph
>
>RESOLUTION: All RDF/XML documents that are equivalent under the RDF 
>Recommendation are equivalent OWL exchange documents
>
>RESOLUTION: The exchange language for OWL is RDF/XML
>
>RESOLUTION: We intend to produce non-normative presentation syntaxes 
>and their mapping to the exchange syntax
>
>RESOLUTION: The preference of the WG is to produce at least one XML 
>and one frame presentation syntax



>
>>  -----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
>>


-- 
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 16:13:55 GMT

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