- From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
- Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 11:52:34 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Peter, Thanks for a great document that clearly presents the choices we have before us. Since I will be unable to attend the F2F, I'd like to provide my initial votes on these issues. 1) I vote for B, a non-RDF XML dialect. My arguments can be found in various threads on the mailing list. [1] [2] 2) I don't fully understand the implications of the issue, but I find the particular example undesirable. Could you describe the basic issue a little more formally? 3) I think this one oversimplifies things a little bit. Our requirements document has some things that are not typically in a description logic (e.g., equivalence of individuals, local unique name assumptions). However, if we see this choice as sort of the fundamental part of the language that may have some additional semantic extensions, then I suppose I'd have to vote for D, roughly the power of DAML+OIL. 4) I am not in favor of formal sub-languages. If the Semantic Web follows the "layer cake" design, there will already be plenty of layers; if we starting adding sublayers to each layer, then things just get too confusing (I've already heard people complain that they have to read too many specs to understand this Semantic Web stuff: XML, RDF, RDF-Schema, DAML+OIL, that's a lot of reading!). However, I would be in favor in using the layers informally to present the language. This allows people to learn the basics quickly, and to gain proficiency in the language at their own pace. 5) I think we need to distinguish between RDF model theory and RDFS model theory here. Also when you say in B that the model theory might be "close to RDF," I assume you mean it is an extension that is almost compatible. Assuming we go with a non-RDF syntax for ontologies, then I would vote for a model theory that is almost or fully compatible with RDF for instances, but is different from RDF Schema for ontologies. 6) I'm not sure about this one. I am leaning in favor of it, because it appears to me to be simple entailment. If we translate this into FOL with unary classes for predicates, then this seems to say that: Student(john) Employee(john) entails Student(john) AND Employee(john) I can't see how we could have a semantics that doesn't say that. But since Pat Hayes is arguing against this, and he is more of a logic expert than I could ever hope (or want ;-) ) to be, I must be missing something here. Jeff [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Mar/0277.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Mar/0337.html "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote: > > I updated > > http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/webont/approaches.text > > in response to the comments received during the teleconference. > > This is the face-to-face version. However, comments before the > face-to-face are still welcome, and will be addressed at the face-to-face. > > peter
Received on Friday, 5 April 2002 11:52:37 UTC