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

Re: WOWG: first language proposal

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:44:51 +0100
To: "Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen" <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
Cc: "www-webont-wg <www-webont-wg" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFB5ABF24C.48C882E8-ONC1256B8A.003CBA13@agfa.be>

Jeff Heflin wrote:
>>>Finally, an important issue will be finding a way to map your abstract
>>>syntax into XML/RDF and still preserve its simplicity. I believe that in
>>>order to get a good, intuitive syntax, we'll have to seriously consider
>>>dropping the idea of using triples to represent the language, i.e., do
>>>not layer on top of RDF Schema (but this is a point I've already raised
>>>in another thread).

Jos De_Roo wrote:
>> I haven't seen anything in the past 3 years that would motivate
>> such an idea, really, http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Overview.html

Frank van Harmelen wrote:
>Can you clarify what you mean by "such an idea"?
>Do you not see to the need "to map the abstract syntax into XML/RDF and
>preserve its simplicity" or to " not layer on top of RDF Schema" ?

oops, sorry for the confusion Frank, but I meant the latter one
i.e. the idea to drop the use of triples to represent the language
(also in the perspective of the logic/proof layers)
all cases I've seen so far are examples of circular models
such as _:x :p _:y . _:y :q _:z . _:z :r _:x but I don't
see any problem with that

Jos De Roo
Received on Thursday, 28 March 2002 06:45:27 UTC

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