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

RE: Patel-Schneider Paradox ...

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 12:38:00 -0000
To: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDKEMJCCAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Summary: changes to RDFS are in charter for RDF Core WG and do not need to
wait until RDF2.

> > If we feel that the only way is to ask for changes in RDF, that is
> > out of our charter, but I can go to the semantic web coordination
> > group and extend our request for discussion and possible rechartering
> > of one of the two SW WGs (us or RDF Core) or for a special combined
> > group to work the issue.
> One think I'd be quite happy to see come out of this (and of RDFCore) is
> design input for an RDF2 ("RDF-N", whatever...) specification. RDF 1.0 was
> kept pretty simple, and it isn't suprising that we're pushing at the
> limits of what we can get done with such a simple representational system.
> I don't think it's the current work of RDFCore or WebOnt to do an "RDF 2",

My understanding of the issue is that it is to do with the use of classes of
classes and classes of properties.

As far as I can tell RDF M&S was silent on these, and RDFS did not reach
full rec because it was not compatible (in domain & range) with the DL
approach. If/when we have uncovered further incompatibilities between RDFS
and the DL approach (in say the meta-model) these would strike me as being
*in charter* for the current RDF working group, and not an RDF2 issue.

If what is required is syntactic changes or other semantic changes to better
accomodate OWL then I agree with Dan.

Received on Monday, 21 January 2002 05:11:06 UTC

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