- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:27:58 +0300
- To: <areggiori@webweaving.org>, Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- CC: RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, RDF Logic <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
On 2002-06-24 20:48, "ext Alberto Reggiori" <areggiori@webweaving.org> wrote: > Jonathan Borden wrote: > >> Don't you see what you are trying to do? > > I think I can see what I am trying to do here, which is proposing a practical > solution (like Patrick I guess) to layer new semantics on top of RDF using > reification and the current XML/RDF syntax which most parsers understand > already :-) > > Isn't the WebOnt supposed to layer OWL on top of RDF using the XML/RDF _as it > is today_ [1] or am I missing something here ? :-) Well, the RDF Core WG *could* change RDF to accomodate the layering needs of OWL, since it appears to be a critical need that will have long range impact on the development of the SW. I was simply trying to point out that RDF *already* provides for dark (unasserted) triples, even if folks don't consider the syntax to be their cup of tea, and that it makes far more sense to consider making the syntax more palatable without extending the core RDF machinery or introducing a second way to express unasserted triples. An OWL-specific RDF API could make the statements which are unnasserted at the RDF layer appear asserted at the OWL layer, allowing RDF and OWL applications to operate off the very same triples store. Likewise for any other layer above OWL. It's simply a matter of perspective then, which statements are asserted or not, and that perspective is different at each layer. But the underlying RDF model can be used for all layers. So, arguments against such a proposal based on the obesity of the syntax are very easily addressed by introducing the contracted form I proposed (and since parsers anyway will have to be updated to support other changes to RDF/XML, such as parseType="Collection", this is not at all an unreasonable thing to ask). And arguments that unasserted OWL statements will have a different graph representation from asserted RDF statements can be addressed by OWL specific APIs as described above such that generic inference engines interfacing with the OWL level API will "see" unasserted RDF statements with OWL vocabulary as asserted RDF triples. Thus, such an approach lets both RDF and OWL have their cake and eat it too, without either having to eat the other's cake. Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2002 03:23:35 UTC