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

From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Subject: Re: more on a same-syntax extension from RDF(S) to OWL
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 10:44:32 -0500

> Peter,
> 
> >
> >
> > Well what I think that all this points out is the difficulty of writing
> > things in this way.  In particular, you have to be *very* careful how
> > you label what you are doing.
> >
> > Note that you said that it doesn't *entail*, which is a semantic
> > relationship.  I pointed out that it does *entail*, which it does.  Your
> > rules won't infer it, as they are incomplete.
> >
> > I think that it would be much better if everyone using N3 refrained from
> > using log:entails as the predicate in rule.  It would be even better if
> > they refrained from using log:implies, log:Truth, and other such
> properties
> > without pointing to a readable description of what they meant by such
> > properties.
> >
> > Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> > Bell Labs Research
> 
> Perhaps an MT for N3 would be useful. 

> One of the major benefitts of N3 over
> RDF (including N-Triples) is the simple ability to write down a set of
> statements _without asserting them_. 

But RDF, can, sort of, do this.  All you do is set up a bag of reified
statements.  Well actually there is a lot more that you need to do if you
want to do useful things with this abilitity, without causing problems, but
that is not a syntax issue, but instead has to do with what such things
mean.

> I have a hunch that if RDF were able to
> do that, then much of the layering issues would either go away or at least
> be more easily solvable. Short of that we are stuck with the real issues you
> are raising.

Well the problem with RDF and, I think, with the intended meaning of N3
is that the attempt to do everything in the object language results in
having to dance around too many issues like use/mention, denotation, and
the status of variables.  There are ways out of these problems, but it
seems that the people who want to use RDF in this way also don't want to
use the solutions.

> Jonathan

peter

Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2002 10:17:55 UTC