Re: UPDATE: initial message concerning syntax

I have certainly *not* abandoned the idea that the semantics of SWOL should
be compatible with the semantics of RDFS.

In fact, I've spent a lot of time trying to make DAML+OIL (and, now, SWOL)
as compatible as possible with RDFS.  It is certainly not *necessary* that
a web ontology language be at all compatible with RDFS in either syntax or
semantics, I've just been trying to make it so as much as possible.  The
unfortunate fact is that complete compatibility is impossible, so what
should go?  I've been operating under the assumption that form is not as
important as function, and so now that RDFS has a semantics I've been
trying to make the semantics line up first, and only thereafter worry about
the (surface) syntax.

If any of you would prefer not to have compatibility between RDF and a web
ontology language, just let me know, I'm sure that that can be arranged.  :-)

peter



From: "Lynn Andrea Stein" <lynn.stein@olin.edu>
Subject: Re: UPDATE: initial message concerning syntax
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 16:28:47 -0500

> Well, I was in the process of composing a message suggesting that we
> should not necessarily be assuming that the semantics of SWOL was
> compatible with those of RDF(S), when I had to go teach class, and by
> the time I got back, Peter seems to have come to the same conclusion. 
> Since my email is now obsolete, I will go read Peter's new one and hope
> he doesn't change his mind again before I have an opportunity to
> respond.  :o)
> 
> Lynn

Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 21:17:11 UTC