Re: Semantics, in particular DAML+OIL semantics

At 9:30 AM -0400 8/15/02, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>From: "R.V.Guha" <guha@guha.com>
>Subject: Re: Semantics, in particular DAML+OIL semantics
>Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 14:46:58 -0700
>
>>  I am referring to the ability to treat classes and [properties] as first
>>  class objects.
>
>Hmm.  I would instead say that RDF and RDFS treat everything, classes and
>properties as well, as third-class objects.  There is *very* little that
>one can say about classes and predicates in RDF and RDFS.

this strikes me as a strange argument - it is hard to say much of 
anything about anything in RDF/RDFS, which is why we need OWL, an 
eventual rules langauge, etc.   The bottom layer of a network needs 
to be fairly simple - the things on top extend -- this works in every 
other field and across the web.  If traditional approached to logic 
cannot live with this, the solution is to find new ways, not to break 
the Semantic WEB.   I remember a bunch of proofs I saw in the early 
90s that the "logic" underlying hypertext systems was such that Tim's 
stuff couldn't work.  I think he did the right thing in ignoring 
those criticisms and building it the way he did -- may not be as 
elegant as the early systems, but sure works well in the wild....

>
>The difficulty arises when one wants to say more about classes and
>properties and, in particular, construct complex classes and properties or
>construct complex sentences, i.e., treat them as at least second-class
>objects. 
>
>peter


-- 
Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler

Received on Thursday, 15 August 2002 10:33:12 UTC