- From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:12:35 +0100
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Jim Hendler wrote: > Umm, I think the *next* step is to get some people working on some > specific proposals - not to have a general discussion of approach, we > need to have specific proposals on the table to discuss and move > through. Jim, I think we are already close to this: The layering document lays out 4 options. 1.Same-syntax semantic extension: 2.Syntax and semantic extension 3.Same-syntax, but diverging semantics 4.Differing syntax and semantics Each of options 2-4 could be realised without further ado, Option 2 would lead to "extraordinarily-complex and difficult patterns of reasoning", so is out. I get the impression option 4 is not really serious (it basically ignores RDFS). These leaves 1 and 3. Option 3 has the nice feature that we can use RDF to reason about OWL syntax. option 1 is very nice but could only be chosen if at least one of the following fixes was made to RDF(S): 1a move rdf:type to the meta-theory 1b stratify RDFS 1c allow for un-asserted triples in RDF (and perhaps 1a and 1b are the same if someone could explain it to me) Looks like the next steps would be to get a sounding from RDF Core on 1a-c. If these are all out, we now where we stand. If at least one of these could be in, we have to choose between 1 and 3. Frank. ----
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 04:15:24 UTC