- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 08:14:07 -0400
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, WebOnt WG <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
All - the chairs have NOT opened this issue and the discussion threatens to get into whole sets of arguments that have been raised on rdf-logic and should not be recapitulated here. Let's please hold off on this issue until it is OPENed as per the process for discussion we've agreed to. -Jim H At 11:50 PM -0400 5/22/02, Dan Brickley wrote: >On 22 May 2002, Dan Connolly wrote: > >> > I ask >> > that the WebOnt WG discuss whether to send a polite note back rejecting >> > this interpretation of our work. >> >> I don't think we should. > >FWIW, Peter's dissatisfaction with my note (which wasn't addressed here) >is noted. > >I continue to regard the WebOnt language (and the RDF 1.0 syntax, and it's >MT, and RDFS) as a component of the wider Resource Description Framework, >but don't propose we take time up discussing labels here. >(<onlyhalfjoking>We used to call this effort the Platform for Internet >Content Selection; maybe we could go back to that name if folks really >don't like the RDF TLA?</onlyhalfjoking>) > >[...] > >> A consumer of the above document either or does or doesn't grok >> DAML+OIL semantics; it can come to more of the relevant conclusions >> if it applies DAML+OIL axioms, but since everything is monotonic, >> there's no harm done if it doesn't apply those axioms. >> >> This is the principle of partial understanding in action. >> I have tried to make this point in the past... >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Mar/0339.html >> but I'm not having much luck. > >How about we try to think about this issue in forward-looking rather than >backward-looking terms? > >Given RDFS and WebOnt, we're looking at partial understanding in terms of >RDFS-aware tools dealing with with WebOnt-enriched RDF Schemas (er, >Ontologies). So how about we forget the past and look to the future? > >Imagine you're in the WebOnt v3.0 WG, looking back on the products of this >group, balancing v3.0's backward compatibility with present-day >requirements and opportunities. Presumably WebOnt v1.0 isn't the one true >ontology language to end them all? We might expect a version 1.1 or 2.0 at >least. Or perhaps people will take to describing their RDF Schemas and Web >Ontology vocabularies using one of the various RDF-oriented rule >languages. Maybe W3C will even do a REC-track spec or two for such a rule >language. And what about datatyping? The XML Schema WG is still active, >and might well produce refinements of the XML Schema datatyping system, >which will at some point manifest itself in the RDF and Web Ontology >world. The future looks busy. > >Partial understanding in action: people will write tools to work with the >WebOnt 1.0 language, just as they're writing tools to work with RDF Schema >vocabulary descriptions now. We need to think about how these new WebOnt >tools will, or won't, be suprised by documents that draw on features >defined in specs subsequent to WebOnt 1.0. Is a WebOnt ontology that draws >upon some additional (webont v2, rdf-rules-1.0?) namespace still really a >WebOnt doc? Is it an RDF Schema for that matter? (re the latter, yes, imho). > > >At the instance data level, all this shouldn't matter. (Thankfully, for >the poor end users...) > >A question. Or maybe even test case... > >Is the following XML doc 'mere RDF', or a 'WebOnt instance document'? (or >a DAML+OIL doc). What changes in the Web might change our answers to this >question? > ><web:RDF xmlns:web="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" > xmlns:wn="http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/" >xmlns="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"> > > <wn:Person> > <name>Dan Brickley</name> > <mbox web:resource="mailto:daniel.brickley@bristol.ac.uk"/> > <mbox web:resource="mailto:danbri@w3.org"/> > <homepage web:resource="http://purl.org/net/danbri/"/> > <dateOfBirth>1972-01-09</dateOfBirth> > <depiction >web:resource="http://rdfweb.org/people/danbri/2000/01/01/Image1.gif"/> > </wn:Person> > ></web:RDF> > >Note that currently the RDF schema at the http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/ >namespace asserts that the 'mbox' property used here is a >daml:UnambiguousProperty. At some point it'll probably use WebOnt 1.0 >vocab instead. And eventually I'll use whatever ontology, rules and schema >language best capture the intended meaning of the classes and properties >in my namespace. Maybe I won't change the document you get at the >namespace; I might send digitally signed RDF to a usenet group instead. >But the intention should be clear: describe the vocabulary as accurately >as possible with the machinery currently to hand. > >Dan > > >-- >mailto:danbri@w3.org >http://www.w3.org/People/DanBri/ -- 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 Thursday, 23 May 2002 08:14:22 UTC