- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 17:53:58 -0400 (EDT)
- 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