- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:10:23 +0100
- To: "Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen" <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
- Cc: "www-webont-wg" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> 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. w.r.t. option 1c we could say that we need some way to have some RDF triples be around, accessible to our machinery but *not yet* asserted. I would like to refer to some exchange I had with Pat on the RDFCore list last month -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0178.html [and we also had some other exchanges, but they are :-( not on the Web] -- Jos De Roo
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 05:11:01 UTC