W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > March 2002

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

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 07:28:58 -0500
Message-ID: <018901c1c50a$831c4f60$0301a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

> More detail
> ===========
> For example, we can have separate files, some of consequences, some of
> conclustions, and then say that files A, B, and C entail files D, E and F.
> This can be made formal quite easily.
> My belief is that that is sufficient for the only use cases I am aware of
> that is in charter for this group. Those use cases are to have clear
> discussions within the group and for the stating of test cases for
> implementations.

 Are the use cases  Lynn gave within scope?

What about the most simple expressions:

(or [sky color blue][leaf color green])

(not [rose color red])

Are you suggesting that I need to put each triple in its own file?

The inability to make an expression which contains a nested subexpression
without asserting each subexpression seems to be a Draconian limitation on
the underlying language with which we are to work. I am not sure what
motivates this. I note that this is _not_ a limitation of the MT rather the
RDF _syntax_. It would be easy enough to fix.

> I do not believe that we will need logical entailment in our language.

I will leave that to the DL experts. I would just like to point out that
_other_ languages whether they be RuleML or N3 which do deal with general
logic, will necessarily be written in _other than_ the current RDF. Since I
do think that compatibility with these languages will be of essence this
emphasizes the importance of maximal compatibility with XML -- since that is
the other language in our charter.


Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2002 06:52:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:28 UTC