- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 08:23:23 -0500
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > Yes, well, to speak plainly, I expect that if you we forbidden to use the > > terms "rdfs:seeAlso" and "rdfs:isDefinedBy" under penalty of > > death, that you > > would be able to design a long and productive life for yourself. Let's not > > use the term "can't live with" too lightly, eh? > > :) > > you are right of course - (well, God willing). :-))) > > but I really do think I would vote against further progress of OWL along the > recommendation track in some instances ... and the RDFS => OWL Lite > migration is one of those showstopping issues for me (of course that might > be an incorrect judgement, I am influenced by having worked on RDF > developers kits and RDF standards; and HP has a greater RDF investment than > say Description Logic investment). > I hope the issue isn't _RDF_ vs _OWL_, rather _RDFS_ vs. _OWL_. I don't entirely understand _RDFS_ as a standalone 'product'. To me it seems better presented as a sort of base language onto which one can develop a production language. With RDFS alone you can't do much, can you? (I am perfectly willing to be wrong on this issue -- it is merely my impression at the current point in time). RDFS becomes useful when you add specific terms (and create something like OWL Full, for example). In this context I am trying to understand the implications of the migration path from RDFS to OWL Lite. Can you enlighten me as to how HP is using _base_ RDFS (i.e. without an 'extension' vocabulary). I mean if an OWL Full reasoner is so problematic, then wouldn't an RDFS reasoner have the same exact problem? And if there is no problem developing an RDFS reasoner then why ought not we use OWL Full, and why not migrate directly from RDFS to OWL Full? (or whatever parts of OWL Full that one cares to use) Jonathan
Received on Friday, 24 January 2003 08:46:52 UTC