From: Dan Connolly ([email protected])
Date: 02/06/01
Frank van Harmelen wrote:
>
> At the risk of being incredibly naive, I suggest that there is a fairly easy way out of this:
>
> [1] We adopt the proposal from Ian and Peter
I presume you mean
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/daml+oil/Datatypes/
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 23:09:32 GMT
> [2] This commits us to a semantics for the strictly separated use of "predefined" and "user-defined" classes (my attempt to use better names than abstract and concrete),
I still don't find the motivation for this compelling, but
I don't have any particular reason to object.
But this isn't the only issue I see...
> Tell me where I'm being too optimistic.
Surface syntax.
(1) folding XML Schema datatype declarations
and xsi:type into RDF; where is this specified?
(2) how do we interpret basic RDF syntax? i.e.
what formula is this?
<rdf:Description about="#something">
<myNS:size>6</myNS:size>
</rdf:Description>
would I translate that to KIF as
(myNS:size #something 6)
or
(myNS:size #something "6")
?
The proposal from Ian and Peter seems to make the
basic RDF syntax ambiguous.
My suggestion is to interpret the above as
(myNS:size #something "6")
along with
(and (someOtherProperty #something 6)
(rdf:value 6 "6")
(valueProperty myNS:size someOtherProperty))
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
office: tel:+1-913-491-0501
pager: mailto:[email protected]
(put return phone number in from/subject)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST