- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:00:54 -0500
- To: "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: "RDF Logic list" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk> To: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org> Cc: "RDF Logic list" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 1:26 PM Subject: Re: DAMl "Thing" should be Top, Universal class - including concrete types > Tim, > > I agree with a lot of what you say - it would clearly be "nicer" not > to separate abstract and concrete domains. As I understand it, the > idea behind daml+oil is that it provides clear semantics and potential > implementation paths (e.g., for reasoning services) for some > restricted subset of what can be written in RDF(S). If you want the > semantics and the services, the cost is the restriction. Can you explain why? > 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 It is not a requirement to give an "implemention path" for a specific reasoning system. We are not designing a reasoner. 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. Tim
Received on Thursday, 1 February 2001 18:01:13 UTC