- From: Smith, Michael K <michael.smith@eds.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 09:11:18 -0500
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Jim, > Mike- > The group resolved that the RDF/XML document would be the exchange > syntax, not the triples. > -JH So what does 'underlying syntax' mean? Looking at the minutes (http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf2.html) I read Decisions about on how to move forward with syntax (14:16Z) PROPOSED: 1 that there is a presentation syntax and an underlying syntax and a transform 2 some form of presentation syntax is requirement 3 RDF is underlying syntax 4 that the presentation syntax is in XML last point fails to gain consensus. RESOLVED: 1 that there is a presentation syntax and an underlying syntax and a transform 2 some form of presentation syntax is requirement 3 RDF is underlying syntax The way I read this is that we have not yet determined a presentation syntax and that RDF (which I assume means RDF triples) is the 'underlying' syntax. I had assumed that meant interchange format. Or are we just asserting that it is a requirement that a translation from OWL to RDF be defined? As far as I can see, this doesn't change the thrust of my argument. Nothing in this requires that OWL translate to all possible RDF triples. And thus we can arrange to avoid a requirement that OWL provide a semantic interpretation that covers arbitrary RDF triples. - Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Hendler [mailto:hendler@cs.umd.edu] > Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 9:42 PM > To: Smith, Michael K; Peter F. Patel-Schneider; www-webont-wg@w3.org > Subject: RE: ISSUE: Malformed DAML+OIL Restrictions > > > At 10:38 AM -0500 5/17/02, Smith, Michael K wrote: > >I went over some of this in my response to Jeremy a while back > > > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0085.html > > > >The fact that the F2F decided triples would be the exchange > syntax does not > >require that the definition of OWL syntax be given in > triples. It would seem > >to permit a translation process, say from an XML-based OWL > syntax. And that > >syntax could be more restrictive. If OWL must accommodate > all triples, then > >it must give an interpretation to all RDF, which is > something Peter is > >trying to avoid. > > > >As far as I am concerned, "triples" are only marginally > syntax. One point > >of syntax is to help free the semantics from complicated > statements about > >when a term is meaningless. > > > >In propositional calculus, the 'meaning' of "A and and and > or B" doesn't > >come up. And it would not be a feature if it could. > > > >- Mike > > Mike- > The group resolved that the RDF/XML document would be the exchange > syntax, not the triples. > -JH > -- > Professor James Hendler > hendler@cs.umd.edu > Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 > Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. > 301-405-6707 (Fax) > AV Williams Building, Univ of Maryland > College Park, MD 20742 > http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler >
Received on Monday, 20 May 2002 10:11:37 UTC