From: Stefan Decker (stefan@db.stanford.edu)
Date: 01/09/01
Peter, 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 translate the information available (this is the approach we used to e.g. translate UML-XMI into DAML/OIL at http://www.interdataworking.com ). (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 other 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, Stefan At 07:58 AM 1/8/2001 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >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