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

> 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