Re: (Part 1) Where did these syntax constraints come from?

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 01/08/01 

From: Frank van Harmelen <frankh@cs.vu.nl>
Subject: Re: (Part 1) Where did these syntax constraints come from?
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 23:27:36 -0100

> This is not what we had wanted to suggest. We believe the situation to
> be as follows:
> - DAML+OIL assigns a specific semantics to certain RDF graphs
>   (in this respect, it is exactly similar to RDF Schema)
> - It's the underlying RDF datagraph that counts, not the particular
>   surface RDF syntactic form that is used to describe it
> - RDF allows for multiple syntactic forms for the same underlying datagraph
> - since DAML+OIL assigns semantics to certain RDF graphs, DAML+OIL
>   should also be insensitive to the particular syntactic form used

It seems that the the issue of DAML+OIL being specified in terms of RDF
triples has been decided, but I don't understand why this is so.  Can
someone enlighten me as to why we are going through so many hoops to end up
with what is, in my opinion, an undesirable result?

Peter Patel-Schneider

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST