Re: Layering on what? was: Re: more on a same-syntax extension from RDF(S) to OWL


> Generally I try to use raw RDF, but occasionally, particularly if someone
> else is so doing, I slip into an informal N-triples or N3 syntax.  My part
> of the example above uses only parts of N3 that map well into RDF.
> The problem with layering on N3 is that you can't really layer on
> that has no semantics. N-triples, on the other hand, has both a reasonable
> syntax and a decent semantics (or soon will).  However, N-triples is
> nothing more than RDF.
Certainly, but:

john a A .
john a B .
john a _:1 .
_:1 owl:intersectionOf ( A B ) .

the "a entails b" (which seems like a perfectly reasonable way to write
it -btw), how would one properly write _that_ in RDF?


or the following:

john a A .
john a B .
   _:1 owl:oneOf ( _:2 ) .
   _:2 a owl:Restriction .
   _:2 owl:onProperty rdf:type .
   _:2 hasClassQ _:1 .
   _:2 maxCardinalityQ "0" .

I fear that the seemingly small nitty gritty deficiencies in the current
version of RDF may come back to bite us (or OWL will simply develop its own
parsers, query languages, database support etc.)


Received on Monday, 4 March 2002 22:50:03 UTC