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

From: Stefan Decker (
Date: 01/09/01


one (among many) answers:
RDF is basically known in the database community as semi-structured data and
used for database and schema integration tasks.
It basically boils down to that every datamodel can be represented as a graph.
If it is available as a graph declarative means can be used to process and 
the information available (this is the approach we used to e.g. translate
UML-XMI into DAML/OIL at ).
(if there is interest I can sent some references for older (1997) and more 
recent papers
(2000) about information integration).

Directly specifying DAML+OIL in RDF makes it easy to translate to and from 
representation formats to DAML+OIL (and thus encourages the use).
Translation is definitely necessary, since most of the available 
information is not
described in DAML+OIL.

All the best,


At 07:58 AM 1/8/2001 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>From: Frank van Harmelen <>
>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