- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 19:54:48 +0900
- To: Rob Shearer <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
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. [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/20040505005012.GG9495@w3.org -- -eric office: +1.617.258.5741 NE43-344, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA cell: +1.857.222.5741 (eric@w3.org) 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