- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 00:11:40 +0200
- To: "pat hayes <phayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
Pat, I better understand it now... Is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Mar/att-0018/LBASE-new.html the latest state of the art? -- , Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu To: Jos De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER@AGFA > cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org Sent by: Subject: Re: SEM: OWL Full semantics www-webont-wg-requ est@w3.org 2003-05-12 08:37 PM >Pat, in your message >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003May/0067.html >you wrote very sensible comments which I fully support. >If I may suggest, put on your OWL S&AS editor's hat and >put it those changes !-) AS&S is a multi-document, and each part of it has a different editor list. I only commented on the parts of the document where I am not listed as editor, and they were intended as comments to the editors of those sections. > Further on, as I have suggested >many times, the OWL Full vocabulary extension of the >RDFS semantics [RDFS MT] could be made explicit in the >shape of corresponding entailment or inference rules >which are sanctioned by those OWL Full semantics. Yes, that could be done, if necessary as back-projections from the translation into Lbase, though it would be rather complicated to get a complete set of rules (and very complicated to prove it was complete), and they would not all be simple "closure" rules in the RDFS style. >What I captured from many people in the community >is that they are really interested in that and that >it would drastically increase interoperability between >OWL Full reasoners, verifiers and explainers. I also >believe that this is a realistic job; even achieving >a minimum set is much better than having nothing ;-) Interesting idea. However, I think this would be a different document. Obviously, if I had my druthers the entire AS&S document would have been written in a different style, with OWL presented as first an extension of RDFS (OWLFull, that is) then with a syntax restriction to get OWLDL, and with the abstract syntax and 'conventional' model theory presented last, almost as an appendix. But this was clearly a minority view among the trio of editors; Peter and Ian had already done a great deal of work on the abstract syntax when we worked out the RDF-compatible semantics, and Ian was not fully convinced of the internal coherence of the RDF-style model theory; so to have tried to force my own ideas on the group would have led to endless in-fighting, and Peter has done a very nice job within the current style, so I don't think it is worth trying to rewrite the whole thing. I would just like to clarify the relationship of the various OWLs to RDF in the wording of the text here and there, is all. It might be worth trying to write an entirely different document in the style you suggest, by the way, a kind of integrated semantic/inference-rule account of all the W3C SW languages. But if any of us suggest that this be done by Webont, Guus will turn purple. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Monday, 12 May 2003 18:11:57 UTC