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

Re: What do the ontologists want

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 16:57:10 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Jim Hendler <jhendler@darpa.mil>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
I'm not sure if the tone of trivialization here was intended... but I have 
a view that there are some useful things that can be done with an RDF-like 
language that fall short of the requirements of an ontology language, and 
that these might involve a meaningful level of semantics less-expressive 
than FOL.


At 12:08 PM 5/21/01 -0400, Jim Hendler wrote:
>At 11:58 AM -0400 5/21/01, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>In defense of stripped-down RDF, there is nothing technically wrong with a
>>logical formalism that can represent only positive ground triples.  Such a
>>formalism can certainly convey some useful semantic information.
>>It is just that such a representation formalism cannot be used to
>>*represent* anything more than positive ground triples.  Using positive
>>ground triples to encode a more-expressive formalism requires encoding, which
>>requires a new semantics, defined on top of the semantics for the positive
>>ground triples, and makes it essentially impossible to use the semantics
>>for the positive ground triples to represent domain information.
>>Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>>Bell Labs Research
>In other words, if someone built an ontology language on top of an 
>RDF-like langauge we could do important things with it.  Gee, why didn't I 
>think of that?
>  -JH
>Dr. James Hendler               jhendler@darpa.mil
>Chief Scientist, DARPA/ISO      703-696-2238 (phone)
>3701 N. Fairfax Dr.             703-696-2201 (Fax)
>Arlington, VA 22203             http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler

Graham Klyne
Received on Monday, 21 May 2001 13:06:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:45:38 UTC