- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 06:58:02 -0400 (EDT)
- To: wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
From: "Gerd Wagner" <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de> Subject: RE: mappings between SWRL and Boley proposal Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 11:29:15 +0200 > > But, OK, here is a sketch of my proposal: > > > > 3/ Either RDF or OWL can be used to provide information. > > Can or must? If it's just an option to use them, what > else may be used? Well, that is an interesting question. I do worry about using raw XML data, but if someone can come up with a good model-theoretic account of unvarnished XML that is compatible with RDF (or OWL) then I would certainly add XML as a permissable data source. I would say for now that RDF (or OWL) *should* be used as the source of most non-rule information, but that degenerate rules (a.k.a. facts) might also be permissable. > > 4/ The semantics is a model-theoretic semantics similar to > > the semantics of RDF or OWL. > > I think this is too narrow to be feasible for RIF. > We want to accommodate RDF and OWL, but we don't want > to be bound to it. Why is this not feasible for *phase 1* of the RIF? After all, phase 1 won't have defaults or procedural elements, won't it? > > 5/ Compliance for formalism X will be measured as follows: > > a/ Partial mappings will be provided between the syntaxes > > of X and the > > RIF, including mappings between X's data language and > > RDF or OWL. > > b/ A subset of the RIF will be identified as being X-compliant. > > I think that also for the target language X, a matching subset > will have to be identified. Yes, this would be useful. I don't know if it is necessary to separately define this subset, however, as I expect that one could just use the X-image of the X-compliant RIF subset. > > c/ For that subset the deductive behaviour of X must > > "mirror" reasoning in the RIF. > > It seems that the essential disagreement between your proposal > and our proposal is point 4/. We basically agree on all other > points. > > -Gerd Well I think that I disagree very much on the role of RDF (or OWL) as well. I would give it a central position, whereas the proposal appears to relegate it to something more like an afterthought. Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Friday, 19 May 2006 10:58:28 UTC