- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 08:05:21 -0500
- To: connolly@w3.org
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> Subject: semantics: layering...? [was: Next steps (Action: all)] Date: 28 Feb 2002 13:42:38 -0600 > On Thu, 2002-02-28 at 12:41, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > > 3. Semantics: As evidenced by the layering discussion, developing > > > the semantic model for the language (mandated by our charter) is not > > > easy, but needs to be done. We expect to produce both a model theory > > > and an axiomization similar to the ones prepared for DAML+OIL. > > > > Well there has been work done on the layering issues, but it seems to have > > been put off and put off again from the agenda. Therefore, I would like to > > have an agenda item for next week on the layering issue. > > > I've been studying the layering stuff, but I'm not sure > how to prepare for a telcon discussion of layering. > > If you have anything in particular in mind, please let me/us know. Well there are a number of things that you could think of, including 1/ How you want the syntax of OWL to look in general (RDF graphs, RDF/XML, XML, other). 2/ How you want OWL to relate to RDF(S) (extension, close compatability, loose compatability). 3/ How powerful you want OWL to be (defined classes or restrictions, transitive roles, ...). I believe that not all the choices above are possible and that some of the possible choices have bad consequences. > It takes me a while to get the relevant stuff swapped in > my brain to discuss that layering stuff. Also, I have an internal > telcon on Tuesdays, and if you can get me something before > then, I can discuss it with some other folks in > preparation for a telcon. [...] > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ peter
Received on Friday, 1 March 2002 08:05:43 UTC