W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > April 2004

Re: [WRLD] Some few questions about the formal description of the ? TF

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 12:38:20 -0400
Message-Id: <p0602040bbc973a34deb9@[10.0.1.2]>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Thomas Baker <thomas.baker@izb.fraunhofer.de>
Cc: SWBPD <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

At 17:02 +0100 4/5/04, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>Thomas Baker wrote:
>
>>  On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 03:59:28PM +0200, NANNI Marco FTRD/DMI/SOP wrote:
>>
>>>To conclude, i think it is useless and perhaps even a bad educational
>>>choice to present RDF, RDFS and OWL as 3 (or 3 + 2) different 
>>>languages each of them to be
>>>used for a set of problem instead of one language (OWL) with a set of
>>>features each of them which can be used for a set of problem.
>>
>>  Could all three be subsumed under one heading, e.g., W3C
>>  Semantic Web Language (SWL)?
>>  The basic message could then be: "there is one language,
>>  which offers different vocabularies and constructs depending
>>  on what you want to say".
>>
>
>That's not made easier by the semantic differences between the languages.
>(Jeremy said unhelpfully)
>
>
>>  Rather than: "there are three or more languages and this is
>>  how they differ."
>>  Tom
>>


actually, I think this is the right track -- to present it as one 
langauge overall - I'm not sure calling that langauge "OWL" is really 
right -- seems to me RDF is the right name -- that is RDF used in the 
"generic" sense the way "XML" is used to refer to XML, Xquery, XML 
Schema, ...  - we will need to be clear when we mean RDF per se and 
when we mean the specific subsets -- but, for example, a document 
which contains the statement

ex:foo  a ex:bar.

is clearly an RDF document, but depending on what is in the "ex" 
namespace, this could use vocabulary from the RDF Schema and/or OWL 
vocabularies.

similary

ex:foo rdfs:subClassOf sx:bar.

is an RDF document, an RDFS document and an OWL (Full) document, even 
though it doesn't appear to use OWL vocabulary

so I think a goal of the WORLD document (second document, aimed at 
Sem Web interested folks) will be to make clear the relations and to 
point out when there are semantic differences   The semantic 
differences outside OWL DL and Lite are not that great, so this makes 
a good way to discuss what the two profiles of OWL are and what they 
contribute (I'll even hope someone who likes them write this section 
:->)
  -JH
-- 
Professor James Hendler			  http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-277-3388 (Cell)
Received on Monday, 5 April 2004 12:42:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:30:53 UTC