RE: DAML+OIL (March 2001) released: a correction

> From: Jim Hendler [mailto:jhendler@darpa.mil]
> DAML+OIL did not have authority to change anything in RDF or to 
> otherwise impact the RDF spec except by example.

Jim has (as usual) got right to the heart of the problem.  Feedback between
designers of different architecture layers is essential if you want to
create a coherent architecture.  So far, the sequence has been that RDF has
taken XML as a given, and DAML has taken RDF as a given --- feed-forward
with no feedback.  In fact, both XML and RDF are subject to periodic
revision, but there hadn't been the time and experience of using them at the
time the initial versions were formalised (obviously!).  That experience is
now starting to accrue.

I think two interesting questions can be posed here:

1) How could RDF be changed/augmented/better documented to make it a firmer
base on which to build DAML+OIL?

2) How could XML be changed/augmented/better documented to make it a firmer
base on which to build RDF?

... and, I guess, (3) is there any chance of these changes happening?  (3),
at least, would be helped by keeping the dialogue constructive; but (1) and
(2) require constructive criticism of those existing standards in the light
of practical experience.  For example, could the appropriate parts of the
Fikes & McGuinness paper be used within the next revision of RDF to provide
that clear semantics that many within DAML+OIL wish to see?

		- Peter

[For "RDF" read "RDF and/or RDFS"; I tried to construct  similar statement
for XML but was defeated by the plethora of extensions out there.  X*?]

Received on Monday, 2 April 2001 03:38:01 UTC