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

Re: semantics for SWOL : initial message

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 10:33:53 -0500
To: dieter@cs.vu.nl
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020102103353T.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: Dieter Fensel <dieter@cs.vu.nl>
Subject: Re: semantics for SWOL : initial message
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 15:02:55 +0100

>          "The Problem with Semantics in DAML+OIL"
> Dear Peter,
> excellent work! Honestly it took me quite a while to understand the problem you
> encountered. I think you make a very good point here but I am not sure whether
> I agree with the solution you propose. In any case, there need to be an action
> when things like a disjoint statement becomes a relation in the model theory.
> This would get even worse when in a latter stage more expressive languages
> with richer axioms will be defined. I think there are basically two ways to go:
>          (1) referring to RDF as a syntactical layer
>          (2) referring to RDF as a semantic layer
> If I understand you right, then you proposing way no (2) whereas I would prefer
> way no (1). I will try to motivate my choice.
> Basically in good old OIL days we used RDF as a syntax and did not need to
> worry about any entailment in RDF because it was not defined. We also defined
> OILcore in a way that excluded all the bizzare meta model stuff I never under-
> stood (and if I understood it I forgot it five minutes later again). 
> Therefore, we
> always had in mind that an RDF agent can make additional conclusions that
> an OILcore agent is not able to draw because he does not make use of the RDF
> features that allows you to define the language in itself. Also an OILcore
> agent can make conclusions that an RDF agent is not aware of because
> the latter does not understand semantics of things like "disjoint".

My problem with viewing RDF as syntax only is that RDF is completely
unsuitable for this task.  You only have to look at the problems with
DAML+OIL lists to see what is wrong with RDF as syntax.

If the web ontology language is going to use a web syntax, then why not use
XML?  As a syntax XML is better than RDF in just about any way you could
imagine.  XML is much more widely used.  XML has more constructs available.

> Dieter

Received on Wednesday, 2 January 2002 10:34:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:26 UTC