- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:13:10 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Pat, > >I'm not sure what you mean by ``damage''. > > > >One way to go would be to > >1/ ask for ``unasserted'' stuff in RDF > >2/ place restrictions on the form of the DAML+OIL constructs > >This *might* result in a viable solution, depending on how much of a change > >is made to RDF. The change to DAML+OIL here would be > >1/ the syntax > >2/ the model theory > > I am confident that this will be a viable solution. Existing code > does this, in effect, and seems to work reliably, and there is a > clear strategy for providing a coherent semantics. I do not even > think that it will require significant changes to DAML+OIL; the only > extra requirement is that the daml:list triples be unasserted in RDF. > It has some risks, the chief of which is that legacy RDF code which > does not respect the 'unasserted' distinction might produce OWL > inconsistencies. I think this is at worst an interim problem which > will go away by itself, but we should consider it carefully. > -actually- current RDF code should interpret rdf:parseType="daml:collection" as the same as rdf:parseType="Literal" and ought make no inferences about the contents. This is the same as TimBL's use of "log:quote" to represent N3 contexts in RDF/XML. My strong preference would be to treat whatever is in "daml:collection" as unasserted, even when expanded into daml:List. This would have the properties of: 1) treatment of the contents as an XML literal by current RDF parsers 2) introduce a (predicate . list) formula/sentence syntax Perhaps the parseType should be changed to some other name e.g."ont:list", "ont:formula" or "ont:sentence" to prevent the otherwise inevitable conflation of this construct with an RDF collection. Jonathan
Received on Monday, 18 March 2002 15:16:05 UTC