- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:13:37 -0400 (EDT)
- To: larsga@ontopia.net
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org, rdftm@ontopia.net
From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@ontopia.net> Subject: Re: The Q model Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 20:52:11 +0200 > > 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. This seems to be akin to extending propositional semantics to first-order sentences by ignoring the quantifiers and variables. I just don't see how it is obvious that it will work. > | 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. Yes, well then why the claim? > | 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. This seems to be just like saying that you have a syntax that marries propositional temporal logic and higher-order predicate logic, but no semantics for the combined syntax. What makes you think that a reasonable combined semantics is even possible? Note that I'm not saying that this is not possible. I am instead saying that you, as the proposer, need to show that it is indeed possible. > -- > Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net > > GSM: +47 98 21 55 50 <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no > Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2005 21:13:44 UTC