- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 22:25:58 +0100
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
On 1 Jul 2005, at 03:10, Michael Kifer wrote: > > > Ian Horrocks wrote: >> > [snip] > > I deleted most of the discussion, because it was already addressed in > another message or became pointless. > >> On 30 Jun 2005, at 04:11, Michael Kifer wrote: >> >>> >>> *Modulo the blank nodes. The post-facto RDF semantics treats blank >>> nodes as >>> head-existential, which is outside of LP. But there is another, >>> LP-style >>> semantics for blank nodes. >> >> We seem to be back to discussing RDF with a different semantics than >> the one it *actually* has. If we assume that it would be possible to >> give RDF syntax an alternative LP style semantics, then we would have >> two completely separate language towers, one based on RDF and the >> other >> based on RDF-LP. This was *exactly* the point we were making in our >> paper. > > First, it is not too late to fix the mistakes in RDF. As far as I > know, the > implementations of N3 don't respect the existential semantics of blank > nodes. And you kept saying in this thread that N3 is an RDF language. Interesting. It seems that OWL and RDF are either: a) useless, because no one understands them and/or can use them correctly, or b) broken, and need to be "fixed". It is good that your position on this is now clear. > > Second, you never hesitate to place OWL as a whole (incl DL) on > top of RDFS, while you know that this is not the case. I agree that the situation w.r.t. OWL-Lite/DL is not as straightforward as we would like it to be, but there is a large measure of semantic interoperability between these languages and RDF, as can be seen from the running example, further details of which are given in my reply to Sandro [1]. Ian [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-rules/2005Jul/0012.html > > > --michael >
Received on Friday, 1 July 2005 21:26:04 UTC