- From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@ontopia.net>
- Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 20:52:11 +0200
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org, rdftm@ontopia.net
Hi Peter, * Peter F. Patel-Schneider | | I am puzzled why you say that if RDF can be transformed into Q with | no loss of information then OWL/RDFS semantics can be ported to it. Hmmm. I think probably you're reading more into this statement than I intended by it. Clearly, RDF represented in Q is still the same RDF, and so the same OWL/RDFS semantics will apply as when RDF is just triples, but, as you note below, this will be a semantics that ignores the two extra elements. | Both RDFS and OWL have a non-trivial semantics that may not survive | the changes from simple statements to identified and situated | statements very well. Do you have a fully-worked-out version of | RDFS and OWL in this arena? No, I do not. I think I can see a way to take context into account, but I don't have this worked out, and it's definitely possible that taking the two extra elements into account will break it. | Similarly, how do the RDF semantic conditions play into the story, | particularly with the inclusion of contexts in the Q model? I've not been able to work this out yet. This paper takes me to the point where I have RDF and Topic Maps in a single model, but no semantics for this unified model yet. One obvious next step is to create a unified semantics based on this model. -- Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net > GSM: +47 98 21 55 50 <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2005 18:56:19 UTC