- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 23 Apr 2002 10:57:55 -0500
- To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Tue, 2002-04-23 at 10:44, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > OK, herein is included a completely worked out example, it covers the bits that RDF Core needs, yes... I'm still curious about some WebOnt-level stuff... [...] > One way to do this is to put WebOnt language triples into separate > documents, with a different extension. Er... and that's a solution that's acceptable to this WG? Hmm... as a user, I don't think I would find it acceptable. But putting that aside... If this is the proposed solution, this can already be done with RDF core specs as written, no? What are we asking RDF Core to do/add/change? Also... > Such a file might look like > > File foo.ont > > <xml ...> > <rdf:rdf xmlns:fowl="..."> > <fowl:PrimitiveClass fowl:name="Student" /> > <fowl:PrimitiveClass fowl:name="Employee" /> > <fowl:DefinedClass fowl:name="Student-and-Employee"> > <fowl:super rdf:resource="Student" /> > <fowl:super rdf:resource="Employee" /> > </fowl:DefinedClass> > </rdf:rdf> > > Then information about base objects would be in .rdf files > > File foo.rdf > > <xml ...> > <rdf:rdf ...> > <Person rdf:about="John" /> > <Student rdf:about="John" /> > </rdf:rdf> So in this case, how does WebOnt-entialment work? How do we come to the relevant conclusion? > > > What is lost? Well, of course, quite a number of entailments are lost, and > the details depend on which triples are unasserted. However, if nothing is > done, the empty RDF graph will, in the WebOnt language, entail a > contradiction. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 14:34:54 UTC