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

At 10:47 PM -0500 3/4/02, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>From: "Jos De_Roo" <>
>Subject: Re: Layering on what? was: Re: more on a same-syntax 
>extension from RDF(S) to OWL
>Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 02:08:43 +0100
>>  we can surely look to the premis { _:L owl:item _:x } as an RDF graph
>>  where the bnodes of that graph (luckily) become universally quantified
>>  (reaching to conclusion scope) therefore we write ?L instead of _:L
>>  the premis statements are *not* asserted
>>  we can also look to { ?x a [ owl:oneOf ?L ] } as an RDF graph :c, where
>>  [ owl:oneOf ?L ] is like a Skolem functional term replacement of a bnode
>>  also the conclusion graph is *not* asserted
>>  :p log:implies :c is an RDF statement that *is* asserted
>Yes, you can treat the N3 as an RDF graph, but getting it to mean what
>you appear to want here is going to be a tough task.  Even talking about it
>informally is rather tortured.

Peter et al - as you know there's no real N3 spec, but a few 
documents around, and it is important that if we decide to use some 
variant of N3 that we keep track of which features we are using, 
because we will need to document them and create an appendix or 
whatever of our document that makes it clear what we are using.  btw, 
I'm not opposed to this, in fact, ours could be the first WG to 
really take this bull by the horns and provide the careful mapping to 
RDF of an N3-like syntax, but understand that it would be a fair 
amount of work, and we should consider how much advantage we get. 
Note also that I would expect that to be work that would go beyond 
the "SEM" group and involve the guidelines group as well.

Professor James Hendler
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
AV Williams Building, Univ of Maryland		  College Park, MD 20742

Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2002 09:59:11 UTC