Re: Semantics, in particular DAML+OIL semantics

From: "R.V.Guha" <guha@guha.com>
Subject: Re: Semantics, in particular DAML+OIL semantics
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 14:09:39 -0700

> 
> Peter,
> 
>    I don't think we have a problem of one-logic many syntaxes. As you 
> point out, that is not a problem at all.
> 
>    We have a problem of many logics one syntax.  

Do we?  It appears that some players want many logics with one syntax, but
many others prefer multiple syntaxes.  Even worse, it is not just many
logics with one syntax (as in XML and XML Schema, which share a syntax,
sort of, but XML and XML Schema documents distinguished) it is many logics
that share the same document.

> If you do have an 
> integrated model theory of RDF, RDFs and OWL and DAML-S, ... one which 
> does not require RDF and RDFs to throw away many of their features to 
> fit the model of a description logic, you really should propose it.

You might want to look at some papers I wrote with Jerome Simeon for
WWW2002 and ISWC2002 available at

http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/papers/yin-yang.pdf
http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/papers/building.ps

>  Otherwise, I am afraid all I can see is consternation caused by the 
> inability of description logics to accomodate a fairly basic feature 
> that has been found useful in many widely implemented systems.

What feature are you referring to?  

> Guha

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research

Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2002 17:36:36 UTC