I'd like to see the agenda explicitly reflect reception of the attached
message (and referenced paper) and that we have an action item to deal
with it.
--Frank
--
Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-8752
Forwarded message 1
Now that the RDF Core Working group has started its activities, the
"joint committee" who has designed DAML+OIL has written a document that
describes which areas of RDF and RDF Schema need attention based on our
experiences with defining DAML+OIL as an extension of RDF Schema.
You can find the document at
http://www.daml.org/2001/07/RDFS-DAML+OIL-coordination.html
On behalf of the "joint committee",
Frank van Harmelen.
----
Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh
Department of AI, Faculty of Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
de Boelelaan 1081a, 1081HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
tel (+31)-20-444 7731 fax&voicemail (+31)-84-8722806
--------
Abstract:
This document describes which areas of RDF and RDF Schema need attention
based on our experiences with defining DAML+OIL as an extension of RDF
Schema. It is input from the DAML+OIL Joint Committee to the RDF Core
working group.
Contents:
what does DAML+OIL depend on from RDF(S)
RDF triple structure
RDF Schema constructions
what does DAML+OIL not use at all
reification
containers
meta-classes
what changes does DAML+OIL require in RDF(S)
multiple domains with intersection semantics
multiple ranges with intersection semantics
cycles in subclass- and subproperty-hierarchies
what areas of RDF(S) problematic
syntax
normalisation
datatypes
scoping
layering
Syntax of URIs:
Semantics of URIs: