RE: [ontac-forum] Re: Semantic Layers (Was Interpretation of RDF reification)

You suggest in 

" The RDF/OWL view doesn't really make a distinction between Upper Level
Ontologies and Domain Ontologies, but it has been demonstrated that ULOs can
be expressed in RDF/OW"

That there exist upper level ontology that meets all requirement imagined in
Semantic Web language and that it has been demonstrated that this upper
level ontology can be expressed in OWL?

Is this what you are suggesting?



-----Original Message-----
From: Danny Ayers [mailto:danny.ayers@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 5:50 AM
To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
Cc: adasal; John F. Sowa; semantic-web@w3.org; Paul S Prueitt;
brian.macklin@cec.eu.int; timbl+speaking@w3.org; colette.maloney@cec.eu.int
Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Re: Semantic Layers (Was Interpretation of RDF
reification)

On 4/3/06, Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy> wrote:

Simply put,
> we must understand which web (or architectural pillars) most fits the
> matter, the formal semantic web (i.e., the syntactic web, known as the SW
> layer cake) or the real semantic web, something like this version:
>
> <Real Semantic Web> ::= <Ontological Framework> < Logical Framework>
> <Semiotics> <the Web>
> <Ontological Framework> ::= <UFO> <Upper Level Ontologies> <Domain
> Ontologies> <EOL>
>
> <Logical Framework> ::= <FMF> | < ... > <EOL>
>
> <Semiotics> ::= <Pragmatics> <Semantics> <Syntax> <EOL>
> <Pragmatics> ::= <Users> <Web Agents> <Intentions> <Actions>
<Communication>
> < Proof, Trust> | <Truth> <EOL>
>
> <Semantics> ::= <Signs, Natural Language Expressions> <Meanings> <EOL>
>
> <Syntax> ::= <Rules> <OWL Ontology> <RDF Schema> <RDF M&S> < RDF>
<XML/SGML>
> <Namespaces> <EOL>
> <the Web> ::= <Resources, state, representation, identification, URI,
> Unicode> <Interaction, sofware agents, hypertext links, protocols, HTTP>
> <data Formats, HTML, XHTML> <EOL>

I'm neither a philosopher nor logician, so forgive me if sounds naive:
how does the above "grammar" conflict with what (if I understand
correctly) you are calling the "syntactic web" - i.e. the Semantic Web
of the W3C initiative?

Ok, there are certainly differences, like here:

> <Ontological Framework> ::= <UFO> <Upper Level Ontologies> <Domain
> Ontologies> <EOL>

The RDF/OWL view doesn't really make a distinction between Upper Level
Ontologies and Domain Ontologies, but it has been demonstrated that
ULOs can be expressed in RDF/OWL.

...here:

> <Pragmatics> ::= <Users> <Web Agents> <Intentions> <Actions>
<Communication>
> < Proof, Trust> | <Truth> <EOL>

and here:

> <the Web> ::= <Resources, state, representation, identification, URI,
> Unicode> <Interaction, sofware agents, hypertext links, protocols, HTTP>
> <data Formats, HTML, XHTML> <EOL>

- only half of each of these are explicit in the layer cake, the rest
(I would suggest) being implicit parts of the system, e.g. the
Semantic Web being an extension of the current Web, the current Web
includes HTTP hence the SW includes HTTP. Both feature Users, Agents
etc.

So it looks to me like your "real semantic web" is the same as the
W3C's Semantic Web, but for a few undocumented features in the latter.
Where's the problem?

Cheers,
Danny.



--

http://dannyayers.com

Received on Monday, 3 April 2006 14:28:34 UTC