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

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 01/09/01

• Next message: pat hayes: "Re: (Part 2) Where did these syntax constraints come from?"
• Previous message: Deborah Mcguinness: "Re: the daml example"
• In reply to: pat hayes: "Re: (Part 1) Where did these syntax constraints come from?"
• Next in thread: Dan Connolly: "Re: (Part 1) Where did these syntax constraints come from?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Let me make comments similar to those that Pat has made, but somewhat (!)
stronger.

RDF has no semantics.  It never has had a semantics.  I say this even
though Richard and Deborah have produced the beginnings of a semantics for
RDF.  Their effort only provides semantics for the portion of RDF
that has a fairly obvious meaning.  (It does not provide a complete
semantics for containers or for reification.)

As with any syntactic system without a clear semantics, people using RDF
have had fights over what various RDF constructs are supposed to mean.   I
forsee these fights continuing ad nauseum.

DAML+OIL uses only a fraction of RDF.  It (purposely) does not use the RDF
constructs that are most open to misinterpretation.  Nevertheless, DAML+OIL
is on somewhat shakey grounds even with this restriction to the
more-obvious portions of RDF.

Peter Patel-Schneider

• Next message: pat hayes: "Re: (Part 2) Where did these syntax constraints come from?"
• Previous message: Deborah Mcguinness: "Re: the daml example"
• In reply to: pat hayes: "Re: (Part 1) Where did these syntax constraints come from?"
• Next in thread: Dan Connolly: "Re: (Part 1) Where did these syntax constraints come from?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

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