W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > May 2001

RE: What do the ontologists want?

From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 21:18:34 -0400
To: <fmanola@mitre.org>, <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Cc: <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000901c0dc13$cb64e3d0$0201a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
Frank, Jos,

Not speaking as a full time ontologist (though as someone who has an
interest) and not being on the RDFCore WG (though as someone who has been
interested in RDF):

I was initially quite surprised to hear that numerous members of the
DAML+OIL group have serious concerns with RDF. Yet these concerns should be
taken _very very_ seriously by RDFCore if indeed an aim is to provide RDF as
a foundation for logic on the web.

A few of these messages highlight some recent discussions we have had
regarding a simplified 'redefinition' of RDF as an abstract _syntax_ on
which DAML+OIL etc. can define semantics.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Apr/0085.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Apr/0087.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Apr/0089.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Apr/0092.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Apr/0100.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Apr/0101.html

To broadly summarize: strip out all the stuff from RDF that no one agrees on
(such as reification). Start with a simple but rock solid foundation, and
add concepts in only as absolutely necessary.

Jonathan Borden
The Open Healthcare Group
http://www.openhealth.org

Frank Manola wrote:
>
>
> As another member of the RDFCore WG, I'd like to second the motion.  At
> the same time, there's been a fair bit of comment on www-rdf-logic on
> what RDF lacks that is useful input on this particular issue (as well as
> both axiomatic and model-theoretic semantics that can provide a good
> starting point).
>
> --Frank
>
> jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com wrote:
> >
> > Pat,
> >
> > Since http://www.daml.org/listarchive/joint-committee/ is public
> > and since I'm reading them from time to time, I came across
> > http://www.daml.org/listarchive/joint-committee/0387.html
> > In there, I found (among other comments)
> >
> >    [[[
> >    It might be salutary and useful if the RDFCore were to spend some
> >    time listening to what the ontologists want, instead of telling them
> >    what they can have.
> >    ]]]
> >
> > Since I am a member of the RDFCore WG I'm more than glad to listen
> > to the ontologists. So what do the ontologists want?
> >
> > --
> > Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
>
> --
> Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
> 202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
> mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-8752
>
Received on Sunday, 13 May 2001 21:19:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:45:37 UTC