- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:54:33 -0500
- To: hendler@cs.umd.edu
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu> Subject: Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:39:03 -0500 > Frank - the problem is that 1-4 as you define them below are > APPROACHES, not yet proposed solutions to move on. I mean we need to > figure out how we operationalize these approaches and move to > language features that support them. Well, I believe that there already are proposed solutions using approaches 2, 3, and 4. Approach Proposal 2.Syntax and semantic extension OWL - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jan/att-0061/01-swol.text 3.Same-syntax, but diverging semantics DAML+OIL - http://www.w3.org/TR/daml+oil-reference 4.Differing syntax and semantics OWL' - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jan/att-0061/02-swol.text What more do you want before having a discussion of which approach to work with? You may note that each of these approaches have (roughly) the same language features. In general, the characteristics of the language do *not* depend on which approach is taken. (Of course, the syntax details of the language and the formal specification of the language *do* depend on which approach is taken, but both of these can be largely ignored when discussing which approach to take.) > It is fine and good for the group to decide "We will have a XXX > syntax and YYY semantic extension" (or whatever), but that doesn't > say which things will be the same or different from current DAML+OIL > or why. We clearly need to set philosophy as part of moving ahead, > but the "task force" I suggested yesterday will need to go through > D+O figuring out how we change it, if at all, to deal with the issues > we've been discussing -- I'm trying to be hard-nosed here and remind > everyone that we need to eventually get this all the way to language > features. > > To date, I see nothing that specific on the table, and we need such. Well, if the two documents I put together were not specific, then I don't know what you want. > For example - a differing syntax solution could be anything from > "chuck the entire DAML+OIL and start again from scratch using C++ > syntax" to "if we simply add the tag <OWL></OWL> around the OWL > equivalent of daml:class statements then everything works again" -- > that's quite a range! Also, it is complicated by the fact that some > of our reasoning may need to go like this: > If RDF were changed to allow XXX then our language works as is (or > with the following minor modification) > if not, then we need to drastically change our language to YYY (for > example, largely abandoning RDF syntax) > > which is the best way we could be able to communicate this sort of > thing back to an RDF WG (either Core or future RDF 2.0) for > consideration or joint solution. It would, I suppose, be possible to state some changes to RDF(S) under which each of the approaches could be considered to be an extension of RDF(S). [...] > -JH Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 12:55:34 UTC