Re: Moving forward

>Pat,
>
>
>>  >I'm not sure what you mean by ``damage''.
>>  >
>>  >One way to go would be to
>>  >1/ ask for ``unasserted'' stuff in RDF
>>  >2/ place restrictions on the form of the DAML+OIL constructs
>>  >This *might* result in a viable solution, depending on how much of a
>change
>>  >is made to RDF.  The change to DAML+OIL here would be
>>  >1/ the syntax
>>  >2/ the model theory
>>
>>  I am confident that this will be a viable solution. Existing code
>>  does this, in effect, and seems to work reliably, and there is a
>>  clear strategy for providing a coherent semantics. I do not even
>>  think that it will require significant changes to DAML+OIL; the only
>>  extra requirement is that the daml:list triples be unasserted in RDF.
>>  It has some risks, the chief of which is that legacy RDF code which
>>  does not respect the 'unasserted' distinction might produce OWL
>>  inconsistencies. I think this is at worst an interim problem which
>>  will go away by itself, but we should consider it carefully.
>>
>
>-actually- current RDF code should interpret rdf:parseType="daml:collection"
>as the same as rdf:parseType="Literal" and ought make no inferences about
>the contents. This is the same as TimBL's use of "log:quote" to represent N3
>contexts in RDF/XML.

That use is illegal RDF right now. N3 misuses RDF all over the place.

>My strong preference would be to treat whatever is in "daml:collection" as
>unasserted, even when expanded into daml:List.

That makes sense, but it requires some changes to RDF. Right now, 
every RDF triple is asserted: there is no provision for including a 
triple in a graph without it being asserted. That is what we need to 
change.

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes

Received on Monday, 15 April 2002 10:57:30 UTC