Re: issue 5.10: a position statement

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> In response to Dan's statement on his view of OWL, here is my view on RDF.
> WARNING:  The following message contains strong language and graphic
>   positions. :-)
> RDF is uninteresting, to me, on its own.
> RDF is only interesting inasmuch as it facilities progress in one of two
> areas:
> 1/ allowing XML data to be used in the Semantic Web, by providing an
> XML-compatible meaning for XML documents that can then be used in the
> Semantic Web;
> or
> 2/ building the interesting parts of the Semantic Web, by providing a
> simple underpinning for the other Semantic Web formalisms.
> If RDF cannot handle almost all XML documents or understand XML Schemas,
> then the first reason for RDF is gone.  If the use of RDF in the Semantic
> Web is so restricted that other formalisms cannot be built on top of it,
> then the second reason for RDF is gone.

I would word this differently -- but I agree with the general gist of what
you say, specificly in the importance of a datatypes solution that is
compatible with XML datatypes. In particular I am becoming very worried
about the direction that the RDF datatypes solution may be taking.

In particular the question posed:

I'll let y'all read through the debate on this but for example:

It really worries me that if given:

Test A:

   <Jenny> <ageInYears> "10" .
   <John>  <ageInYears> "10" .

we CAN'T conclude that ageInYears(<Jenny>) = ageInYears(<John>)
(e.g. see: Are we
then in big trouble -- alternatively will we need to forget the RDF
datatypes 'solution' and create our own?

and what I think would be an XML Schema compatible solution:

In any case if this sort of thing won't step on OWL's toes then I suppose I
don't care _that much_ but I'd like some reassurance.


Received on Friday, 19 July 2002 09:30:22 UTC