Re: Where DAML+OIL deviates from the RDF-Schema spec.

Well I don't know .. it's too complex an issue for the likes of my poor
memory ... I would need to see it in a mentograph first.  If someone could
write up a quick schema in some RDF interoperable language, then I would be
more than happy to draw two LabeledDiagraphs .. one with [1] included and
one with it excluded.  Incidentally [1] has not yet been quoted in this
subtrain.

Seth

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>
To: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: "Frank van Harmelen" <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>; "Graham Klyne"
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>; <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: Where DAML+OIL deviates from the RDF-Schema spec.


>
> I agree with [2] and [3], and could live with [1]. My main concern w.r.t.
> using loops in the class and property hierarchies to indicate synonyms is
> with end-user comprehensibility and with user interface generation. I can
> see that there's a _logical_ story to tell about why loops are OK; I'm not
> so sure there's a modelling and usability story. But then it's not up to
> the core RDFS system to guarantee that folk can't make goofy modelling
> decisions, I guess.
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
>
> > I completely agree (wth respect to [1], [2] and [3] in Frank's message)
and
> > hope the new RDFcore group regards these as bug fixes.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
> > To: "Frank van Harmelen" <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
> > Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 4:56 AM
> > Subject: Re: Where DAML+OIL deviates from the RDF-Schema spec.
> >
> >
> > > At 11:53 PM 2/24/01 +0100, Frank van Harmelen wrote:
> > > >[2]
> > > >"[in DAML+OIL] multiple domain expressions restrict the domain of P
to
> > the
> > > >intersection of
> > > >the class expressions.
> > > >Warning: This is contrary to the semantics of the domain element in
the
> > > >RDF Schema
> > > >specification, which we believe to be flawed."
> > > >
> > > >[3]
> > > >"Warning: Although the RDF Schema specification only allows one range
> > > >restriction for each
> > > >property, it seems quite natural to allow multiple range
restrictions.
> > > >These would then
> > > >again be interpreted as saying that the range of P must be the
> > > >intersection of all the
> > > >class expressions."
> > >
> > > FWIW, I would support changes to RDFS to be more like DAML+OIL in
these
> > > respects.  I think these interpretations are more consistent with the
> > > overall structure of RDF.
> > >
> > > (My rationale:  under "open-world" assumptions RDFS (alone) can not
> > > generally be used to detect errors in RDF, but it can be used to make
> > > inferences.  The usages described above better support inference.)
> > >
> > > #g
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Graham Klyne                    Baltimore Technologies
> > > Strategic Research              Content Security Group
> > > <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>    <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
> > >                                  <http://www.baltimore.com>
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> >
>
>

Received on Thursday, 1 March 2001 14:29:28 UTC