Re: asn06 take 2 (Abstract Syntax as a kind of ontology?)

> With the big difference that I did not use OWL, since the open-world
> semantics of OWL can result in unexpected results (like missing parts
> of rules are automatically "inferred"). What we need is a more or
> less closed-world, database schema like ontology language, so exactly
> what RDFS was originally meant to be but is not any more.

I have a vague sense of what you mean, but I haven't been able to come
up with a case where it's a real problem.   Can you suggest one or two?

Clearly there needs to be some closing-off of the world, but that's
true for many kinds of processing of RDF and OWL, as well.  I'm not sure
how this is different.

> I therefore proposed in my earlier emails

I'm so sorry for not properly crediting / replying to those.  I skimmed
them and meant to get back to them, but forgot.  Apologies, again.

> (1) to use an RDF-based language which is similar to RDFS/OWL,
>     but not use exactly RDFS/OWL (different namespaces +
>     specification of schema semantics needed for this)

So, yeah, let's talk through the costs/benefits there.  We get better
tool support using the normal namespaces; I'd like to understand the
costs.

> (2) use an extension of N3 syntax to avoid completely ugly
>     and lengthy syntax:
>
> rif:Quantif sl:subClassOf rif:Condit .
> rif:? sl:domain rif:Quantif ;
>       sl:range rif:Var ;
>       sl:minCardinality 1 .
> rif:? sl:domain rif:Quantif ;
>       sl:range rif:Condit ;
>       sl:cardinality 1 .
> 
> could become something like this in "N3++":
> 
> rif:Quantif :: rif:Condit
>   rif:? : rif:Var + ;
>   rif:? : rif:Condit + .

Hmmm.  I'll think about that some more (and try to bounce the idea off
TimBL, if I can catch him).

    -- Sandro

Received on Tuesday, 21 November 2006 15:29:42 UTC