- From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:33:25 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@sti2.at>, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Mark Wallace <mwallace@modusoperandi.com>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer <reto.bachmann@trialox.org>, Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com>, Ivan Shmakov <ivan@main.uusia.org>, "<semantic-web@w3.org>" <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 18 Mar 2011, at 22:14, Pat Hayes wrote: > As a fallback, I am thinking of writing up a spec-like document defining 'ground RDF', to show how much simpler everything is when you don't have them. It would cover RDF, RDFS, OWL and SPARQL. What do you think? In [1] we have formally explored this case. --e. [1] Jos de Bruijn, Enrico Franconi, Sergio Tessaris (2005). Logical Reconstruction of normative RDF. Proc. of the Workshosp on OWL Experiences and Directions (OWLED 2005), Galway, Ireland, November 2005. <http://www.inf.unibz.it/~franconi/papers/owled-05.pdf>
Received on Sunday, 20 March 2011 20:34:01 UTC