Re: Objective 4.6: additional semantic knowledge

On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 04:52:52PM -0700, Rob Shearer wrote:
> I appreciate the effort to include OWL in the objectives section, but I
> feel the current approach to these other semantic layers is a bit
> short-sighted. Some people think RDFS is neat, I think description
> logics (and OWL-DL) are pretty spiffy, and others like rules languages
> like SWRL. In time people may well come up with other ways of encoding
> knowledge. Importantly, only a very few of these languages/technologies
> have "structure" that can be sensibly and canonically realized in RDF.

I think this also underlies your objection to 3.5: subgraph results.
What KR can you do in other languages that you can't do in RDF,
however awkwardly?

The presumption when writing the charter was that a large and
practical subset of KR could be reallized as an RDF graph and
querying that graph was the problem we were trying to solve.
I attempted in [1] to pick an example disjunctive query over
an asserted disjunction and show that since it had a canonical
representation in OWL, it was easy to report it as a graph
result. When won't that process work?

> I would simply recommend that we really address the "RDF as data model
> for the semantic web" notion on which all these other technologies are
> predicated. Some suggested text:
> 4.6 Additional semantic knowledge
> It should be possible for knowledge encoded in other semantic languages,
> such as RDFS, OWL, and SWRL to affect the results of queries about RDF
> graphs.


office: +1.617.258.5741 NE43-344, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
cell:   +1.857.222.5741

Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

Received on Thursday, 13 May 2004 06:55:52 UTC