- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 29 Apr 2002 09:11:47 -0500
- To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl, www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Thu, 2002-04-25 at 07:24, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> > Subject: Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples > Date: 23 Apr 2002 10:57:55 -0500 > > > On Tue, 2002-04-23 at 10:44, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > [...] > > 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? > > I do not believe that the two-file solution is compatible with RDF, in that > it treats some files as RDF syntax but not having a meaning compatible with > RDF semantics. Hmm... I'm not sure what that means; probably because I don't understand how the two-file solution works. > If WebOnt is not required to retain compatibility with RDF, It's expected to, but not required to; everything's negotiable, but the more we differ from expectations, the more parties we have to negotiate with. > then please let me know immediately as I can then start working on a WebOnt > language that is not compatible with RDF. It sounds like you're asking about the charter; the charter is less relevant now than the decisions taken by the WG itself: RESOLUTION: The meaning of an OWL document is conveyed in the RDF graph RESOLUTION: All RDF/XML documents that are equivalent under the RDF Recommendation are equivalent OWL exchange documents RESOLUTION: The exchange language for OWL is RDF/XML -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf2.html#L3748 > [...] > > > So in this case, how does WebOnt-entialment work? How do we come > > to the relevant conclusion? > > Well, in whatever way we want to, of course. I don't see how the RDF Core WG could be expected to evaluate the costs and benefits of that. > In particular, the WebOnt > language would then be free to assign whatever meanings it wants to the > constructs in the .ont files. Of course, having the .ont files be RDF > syntax has its own costs, but at least there is a way forward. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ office: tel:+1-913-491-0501 mobile: mailto:connolly+pager@w3.org
Received on Monday, 29 April 2002 10:11:38 UTC