- From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:52:02 -0500
- To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, "RDF Logic list" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Dan Brickley wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > > > > > > The proposal > > > simply suggests a way to extend daml+oil with (a restricted form of) > > > concrete domains while still retaining the above properties. > > > > However, it loses the ability to be a general unconstraining > > langauge for unifying a very wide range of systems present and future. > > This is the requirement of the semantic web > > hmmm... do we have a requirements document? > > Would it help to try to get buy-in on these broad (and broadly couched) > 'requirements' before wading into the nitty gritty? > > You might for eg propose we take http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Semantic > (and nearby docs) as our requirements... My understanding of this problem, and please correct me if this is in error, is that there is a wish to encompass both rdfs:Resource and rdfs:Literal as something to the effect of subClassOf daml:Thing. (Alternatively the current problem in RDF(S) is that rdfs:Literal and rdfs:Resource do not share a common subClassOf). Why not simply define [rdfs:Literal rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource]? As has already been pointed out, every literal can be expressed as a URI of the scheme "data:" so this small change in the RDF Schema Schema should work and not negatively impact legacy RDF systems. > > > > [...] We are making > > a universal language which will allow the expression of information > > from many difefrent systems. When a given system has limited descriptive > > power, then its input and output will be limited to a subset of the > > language. > > yup And better to have a unified top level construct between RDF and DAML+OIL. Jonathan Borden The Open Healthcare Group http://www.openhealth.org
Received on Thursday, 1 February 2001 13:05:57 UTC