Why OIL is cooler?

Hi, everyone. I walk through the roadmap of RDF-IG excitedly and care more about keyword such as "formal", "semantic" or "logic", and even "model". Although my research interest in not mainly on AI, I do need one suitable KR language. Unfortunately, as OIL assumes itself powerful, it seems that fewer people refer it than DAML. If there is, it is a hard problem even Ian Horrocks feel headache, :-) I think it is because there isn't one formal *model* for RDF(S), is it true? Besides RDF query and edit tools, how about our realistic work such as *extensions models*?

Now. In the famous article, "An Extensible Approach for Modeling Ontologies in RDF(S)", which is authored by Steffen Staab and *Stefan Decker*, there is one part in appendix:

<rdfs:Class ID="Relation">
 <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property"/>

Then in Jeen Broekstra's "Adding formal semantics to the Web", it has
<rdf:Property rdf:ID="has-part">
 <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.ontoknowledge.org/oil/rdf-schema/#TransitiveRelation"/>

*Property* , where so-called *semantics* is, acts as dual roles, one at schema/class level one at object/instance level. How can we represent property of property or attribute of attribute? Both authors imply additional axiom translators and ontology editors are needed, which make things more complex, and OIL cools down?

I think it is also interesting to consider interpretation of rdfs:domain, rdfs:range and rdfs:subPropertyOf in Description Logic, at least it will help us understand in formal models.After that statements and their reifications become more meaningful. Is it true?  

I beg your idea and instructions. :-)

Network Research Group
Dept. of Computer
Southeast University
Nanjing, China 210096
phone: ++86253792360, ++8613016962725
email: jshen@computer.org

Received on Friday, 8 December 2000 18:48:55 UTC