Re: MISC: Internet Media Type registration: proposed TAG finding

From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Subject: Re: MISC: Internet Media Type registration: proposed TAG finding
Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 00:14:13 +0200

> 
> [...]
> 
> > > > > I can think of two agents (cwm and Euler) that
> > > > > do a lot more than simple entailment, when
> > > > > asked to. I think of them as RDF agents.
> > > >
> > > > They are not.
> > >
> > >Er... I accept that as your opinion.
> > >I disagree.
> >
> > It seems we need to define what is meant by an "RDF agent".  In
> particular,
> > is it entitled to draw inferences that are not licensed by RDF?
> 
> I would say yes, but better call them "RDF based mechanisms" or some such.
> We also declare the so called "namespace entailment" like in
> 
> ( <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/rdf/rdfs-transitive-subSubProperty/test003.nt>
>   <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/rdf/rdfs-transitive-subSubProperty/test004.nt>
>   <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>
>   <http://www.w3.org/2001/10/daml+oil#> )
>   log:entails
>   <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/rdf/rdfs-transitive-subSubProperty/test004.nt> .
> 
> and those namespaces URI's tell us that we have
> to respect RDFS respectively OWL entailment
> (given their MT's).

If this sort of thing is in RDF there appears to be no way to proceed.  I
would like to write a correct reasoner for RDF.  You seem to be saying that
this reasoner would have to respect the extra-RDF meanings of things like
log:forAll, log:entails, and ont:UnambiguousProperty.  I don't see any way
that I can do this.

Even if you don't want to build a correct reasoner, how are you going to
explain your reasoning to other agents?  In essence this approach destroys
the common language with which to communicate to other agents.

[...]

> --
> Jos

peter

Received on Sunday, 26 May 2002 17:39:58 UTC