- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:36:37 -0500
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
>[...] > >>>Some further thoughts... >>>Suppose we want to say >>> :John a [ owl:intersectionOf ( :Student :Employee ) ] . >>> >>>which is in triples*** >>> >>> :John a _:a0 . >>> _:a0 owl:intersectionOf _:a1 . >>> _:a1 owl:first :Student . >>> _:a1 owl:rest _:a2 . >>> _:a2 owl:first :Employee . >>> _:a2 owl:rest owl:nil . >>> >>>Now suppose I'm so clumsy to create http://www.agfa.com/w3c/n3/ta.n3 >>> >>> :John rdf:type _:a0 . >>> _:a0 owl:intersectionOf <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/n3/ti.n3> . >>> >>>and http://www.agfa.com/w3c/n3/ti.n3 >>> >>> _:a1 owl:first :Student . >>> _:a1 owl:rest _:a2 . >>> _:a2 owl:first :Employee . >>> _:a2 owl:rest owl:nil . >>> >>>This is not to say that we should do it in that way, >>>just to say that it could be thought in that way. >>>I'm now asserting ta.n3 but what happens while >>>asserting the owl:intersectionOf statement? >>>Because we have to have a list of classes it's >>>quite obvious that we have to dereference our uri >>>to get that (functional) term in our engines. >>>Does that mean that we also have to *assert* the >>>statements in ti.n3? Not at all I think. >>>We are not ``talking'' about _:a1, but ``using'' it. >> >>Right, I like this idea. It is simple, straightforward, practical, >>and it requires no change to RDF (though it does come close to >>violating Dan C's notion of what it means to publish an RDF graph). >>OWL needs to add some extra meaning to RDF, but that is what one >>would expect, and the extra meaning involved is very 'webbish' and >>natural-seeming, involving using URIs as, well, URIs. >> >>But I had the distinct impression that this option was ruled out at >>the Amsterdam F2F on the grounds that any solution that involved >>"lots of little files" wasn't acceptable. That was late on the second >>day, and things were a little chaotic, but since then I have been >>working on the assumption that we have to find some other way to do >>it. If that assumption is wrong, maybe someone else who was at the >>meeting can correct my memory. > >That's true, is also my recollection >?? BUt before we go on, do we have a use/mention bug >in above triples*** ?? (I think we do, because >we are not ``talking'' about _:a1, but ``using'' it) Yes. Well, maybe. Its kind of hard to say quite what things like this really do mean, since the only case example we have is DAML, and giving a convincing layering of the DAML MT onto the RDF MT still has not yet been done. We could just *define* the DAML meaning to be one that ignores this much "use" in the RDF, which I think amounts to having dark triples under a different name. >If so, then I think that knowing that _:a1 has to be >``used'' (by value) could also work. What would the actual criterion be for recognizing such 'use', though? Wouldnt it amount to the same as darkening the first/rest/nil vocabulary? 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 Wednesday, 24 April 2002 13:36:39 UTC