W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document)

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>
Message-ID: <OF150EC1C6.02F8CB64-ONC1256B5F.00346FA4@agfa.be>

> 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
> so is out.
> I get the impression option 4 is not really serious (it basically ignores
> These leaves 1 and 3.
> Option 3 has the nice feature that we can use RDF to reason about OWL
> option 1 is very nice but could only be chosen if at least one of the
> 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
> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:27 UTC