- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 15:36:18 -0500
- To: sandro@w3.org
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> Subject: Re: UPDATE: document on layering OWL on top of RDF Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 15:06:42 -0500 > Thanks for helping this discussion move in a productive direction. I > don't understand all the issues as well as I should, but I do think > you omitted the benefit on option 3 (perhaps it was too obvious) and > misstated some drawbacks. > > Benefits: > > 1/ RDF tools, including parsers, database managers, and editors, can > handle [] OWL information (as uninterpretted data). I'm not sure if this is a benefit. I think of it as more of an opportunity for chaos. Of course, opinions may vary. > > Drawbacks > > 1/ New parsers would have to be built for OWL. > > 2/ An RDFS reasoner could not be considered as an incomplete OWL reasoner. > > 4/ Syntactically valid OWL would have a different meaning in RDFS. > > How about: > > 1/ New parsers would have to be built for OWL (but, unlike with > options 2 and 4, they would be layered on RDF parsers, isolating > them from RDF syntax issues and evolution.) Again, I'm not sure how much of a benefit the parenthetical portion is. Any significant change to RDF, e.g., datatyping changes, is likely to affect OWL. > 4/ The syntaxes for OWL and RDFS would be disjoint (with no common > sublanguage, unless some useful overlap is found), so there could > be no reuse of ontology information. (which is kind of drawback 2, > again.) I view this as more confusing than the shorter version above. > Discussion: > > In option 1, we tried to describe the ontological relationships using > RDF and found ourselves with a paradox. With this option, instead of > just moving beyond RDF, we address the problem with a layer of > indirection: we use RDF to describe the syntactic relationships in an > ontology language. It's not clear yet how much use RDF tools will be > with this kind of information. This I agree with, and have added to my version of the document. > -- sandro http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/ peter
Received on Friday, 1 February 2002 15:37:56 UTC