- From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 17:22:40 +0100
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote: > Well, in some sense, no change is necessary. RDFS does not appear to have > any problems in an of itself. True extensions to RDFS can be made and also > do not appear to have any problem. The problems only occur when a > same-syntax extension is mandated. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Indeed. From my understanding of the discussions at Bell Labs, the problem does indeed only occur when OWL must be a "same-syntax extension", ie when OWL would be required to - use RDF syntax, >*and*< - be a semantic >*extension*< of RDF One of the proposals on the table was to keep the first and drop the second. OWL would then include most of the inferences sanctioned by RDF, but not all of them, making it not a strict extension. (in particular OWL would loose some RDF-inferences that wouldn't make much sense from an OWL point of view anyway). This is the option that I would currently favour. Frank. ---- (Peter, please correct me if my understanding is wrong).
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 11:26:03 UTC