- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 08:11:11 -0400
- To: connolly@w3.org
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> Subject: Re: MISC: Internet Media Type registration: proposed TAG finding Date: 22 May 2002 15:29:53 -0500 > On Wed, 2002-05-22 at 06:17, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > The W3C TAG has come up with a proposed finding about internet media type > > registration, which will affect WebOnt sooner or later. Also, a message > > about the finding was sent to the RDF Core (but not to WebOnt), and there > > already is discussion in RDF Core as to how to handle media types for RDF > > and other Semantic Web languages. > > > > [The initial message states ``RDF (RDFCore, RDFS, WebOnt, ...)''. I find > > it rather disconcerting to see words to the effect that WebOnt is (just) > > making another dialect of RDF, no different in status from RDFS. > > Why do you find it disconcerting? That's exactly what WebOnt is, > until we decide otherwise... > > "A DAML+OIL knowledge base is a collection of RDF triples. DAML+OIL > prescribes a specific meaning for triples that use the DAML+OIL > vocabulary. This document informally specifies which collections of RDF > triples constitute the DAML+OIL vocabulary and what the prescribed > meaning of such triples is." > > -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-daml+oil-reference-20011218 Well, DAML+OIL has a very different status from RDFS, even discounting the differences in administrative status. 1/ DAML+OIL had a model theory before RDF and RDFS had. 2/ The DAML+OIL model theory is not compatible with the new RDF model theory. 3/ It is not possible to make DAML+OIL the same kind of extension to RDF that RDFS has been made into and still retain its desirable characteristics. So, DAML+OIL is not an RDF dialect. It stands on its own. It just happens to have the same syntax as RDF, but it has a different meaning. [...] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2002 08:11:20 UTC