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: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 13:01:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20040603.130148.08623944.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: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 09:08:38 -0400


> > 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?
> It says:
>       6. RDF Concrete Syntax
>       In this section we present an RDF concrete syntax for the
>       rules. It is straightforward to provide such an RDF concrete
>       syntax for rules, but the presence of variables in rules goes
>       beyond the RDF Semantics. We do not yet know if the intended
>       semantics of the resultant RDF graphs can be described as a
>       semantic extension of RDF.  
> Did I miss some stronger words somewhere?   That hardly seems like a
> bright-yellow mangled-fingers sticker to me.....   (Okay, maybe
> mislabeling your language isn't *that* bad, but still.)

Well, I suppose that we could have said something like:

	This section describes a way of writing SWRL rules in RDF syntax
	(RDF/XML or triples).  However, it is currently unknown whether
	this encoding can be given a semantics that is compatible
	with both its SWRL meaning and its RDF meaning.

Maybe this would be stronger, but I find the current wording to be quite
explicit and quite strong.  (I would have strengthened the current wording
somewhat, but only to change the ``do not know'' to ``unlikely'', and this
would have been somewhat controversial.)


Received on Thursday, 3 June 2004 12:59:57 UTC

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