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

Re: ruleml and RDF

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 11:54:04 -0400
Message-Id: <200405281554.i4SFs4rb024524@roke.hawke.org>
To: "Wagner, G.R." <G.R.Wagner@tm.tue.nl>
Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org

> > Sandro Hawke writes:
> > In the team comment on SWRL [1] (which is the voice of
> > the W3C staff, NOT the voice of W3C [ie the W3C member or
> > "Director"]), I wrote:
> > 
> >       SWRL connects with RDF in two ways. The crucial connections is
> >       that RDF graphs can be directly expressed in SWRL (using only
> >       the obvious syntactic transformation) and they have exactly the
> >       same meaning. 
> Are you sure that this is the case?

No, you may well be right.  I'm practicing wishful thinking.

> It would require to assume OWL-Full, which doesn't seem to be very 
> popular among OWLers.
> Just one issue is the question if a class has a purely extensional
> semantics, as in OWL-DL, or a kind of "intensional" semantics 
> (allowing for two classes to be different although they have the
> same extension), as in RDF and OWL-Full (and UML!).
> This is a very fundamental issue, which does not depend on
> the possibility of reification.

It seems to me (as I remember the issue) that the degree to which an
OWL Full RDF Graph interpretated as DL entails things which are not
entailed in Full, we have a problem.  But it's totally unclear whether
the headaches caused will be among practitioners or just
theoreticians.  Until proven wrong in practice, I'm planning to keep
treating OWL DL as if it were a sub-language of OWL Full.

      -- sandro

Received on Friday, 28 May 2004 11:53:51 UTC

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