W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-rules@w3.org > November 2003

Re: Rules WG -- draft charter -- NAF

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:32:59 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20031121.123259.07574093.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: stefan@ISI.EDU
Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org

From: Stefan Decker <stefan@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rules WG -- draft charter -- NAF
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:05:49 +0000

> Peter,
> I forgot the answer one point.
> >>Second, the RDF and RDFS CWA of any graph are going
> >>to be OWL-inconsistent.

> Yes, but you would not use the CWA in this way.  You would use
> CWA(OWL(A)), that means use the CWA to query the resulting graph, not the
> other way round (OWL(CWA(A)) - I don't think OWL(CWA(A)) makes sense at
> all - at least I can not think of a useful application.).

Well, I remain unconvinced that this is going to be useful, particularly in
an OWL on top of RDF setting.  The consequences will include the
non-existence of irrelevant descriptions, etc., etc.  There are lots of
issues that remain unsolved here, including how to determine the vocabulary
in use.

> Best,
>          Stefan

On the other hand, some form of domain circumscription could be very
useful.  However, this requires a much more developed theory to work at all
in the OWL framework.

Received on Friday, 21 November 2003 12:33:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:46:16 UTC