W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-rules@w3.org > June 2004

Re: ruleml and RDF

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 17:53:58 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20040602.175358.57465524.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: sandro@w3.org
Cc: G.R.Wagner@tm.tue.nl, www-rdf-rules@w3.org

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Subject: Re: ruleml and RDF 
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 07:45:52 -0400


> > This is like using the language of classical
> > predicate logic, but assigning a non-classical (e.g. intui-
> > tionistic) semantics 
> Somewhat, but anyone doing that and not labeling their use
> appropriately for their audience would surely be castigated.  In an
> academic paper, imagining and discussing a language with the syntax of
> RDF/XML but different semantics would be fine; doing so in a document
> which offers an industry standard is not.
>     -- sandro

I don't know if I follow this line of reasoning.  There is a very strong
warning in the SWRL document that no RDF-compatible semantics for the SWRL
RDF syntax is provided.  Is that not sufficient?

[The following is personal opinion, and in no way should be taken to be the
official view of any other person or group.]

I am perfectly willing to junk the RDF syntax for SWRL and replace it
with a comment to the effect that making SWRL a same-syntax semantic
extension of RDF is problematic.  I personally don't find the SWRL RDF
syntax useful.  As far as I am concerned, the only reasons for including
the RDF syntax for SWRL in the document are to show that it is possible to
have an RDF syntax for SWRL *and* that it is hard (or maybe impossible) to
have an RDF syntax for SWRL that retains the RDF meaning for the syntax.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2004 17:52:11 UTC

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