Re: A Single Foundational Logic for the Semantic Web

On Tue, 28 May 2002, patrick hayes wrote:

> (Sorry it has taken so long to reply to this.)
>
> >  > Sandro Hawke writes:
> >>  > > [Pat Hayes]
> >>  > > None of this [stuff about programming] has anything to do with what
> >>  > > the RDF/DAML/OWL development effort is about, seems to me.
> >>  >
> >>  > That statement is both outrageous and totally understandable.  We're
> >>  > arguing with some pretty ambiguous terms here.   I'll try to be more
> >>  > precise; stop me when go wrong.  (like I have to say that....)
> >
> >Perhaps I should have said: Pat, you're right that the DAML/OWL effort
> >is not about programming; that's why I put them at Layer 3 [1].  RDF,
> >however, is going to be very useful for the programming side of
> >things.
>
> That remark suggests a distinction between RDF and DAML/OWL which is
> completely different from the distinction assumed by the people in
> the working groups concerned.

I agree.

					You seem to see RDF as an
> implementation language (?), whereas the prevailing assumption is
> that RDF is a simple logical language which is extended by DAML and
> OWL. I have to say I find your notion hard to take seriously. If I
> were looking for a programming language for just about any task, I
> would be hard pressed to come up with any reason to use RDF. I'd
> rather program in assembler than in RDF.

Or XSLT?

> Well, of COURSE programming is important. The fact that you feel that
> this needs saying suggests that we may not be communicating very
> effectively. (Also, I do not know what you mean by the "programming
> side of things". As opposed to what, exactly?)

I heard a rumour you didn't like Apple pie, either.

Dan

Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2002 14:32:42 UTC