From: Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
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:connolly.pager@w3.org (put return phone number in from/subject)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST