From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 06/24/01
As promised, here is my initial list of coordination points between RDF(S)
and DAML+OIL.
peter
Coordination between RDF(S) and DAML+OIL
- what does DAML+OIL depend on from RDF(S)
- RDF - basic triple model
- RDFS - basic RDFS classes - CLASS, RELATION, ...
- class organization - subclass, subproperty(?)
- structuring relationships - domain, range, ...
- what does DAML+OIL not use at all
- RDF - reification - not needed, not understood
- containers - wrong properties for our purposes
- RDFS - meta-class organization - not needed
- ...
- what changes does DAML+OIL require
- RDFS - multiple domains - allow, with conjunctive reading
- multiple ranges - change from disjunctive to conjunctive reading
- subclass can be reflexive -
- what areas are problematic
- fit in the middle
- have problems
- are missing from RDF(S)
- datatypes - currently in DAML+OIL
- should be in RDF(S)
- simple class organization - currently in RDFS
- should be ???
- reification - lots of problems
- ...
- containers - need semantic justification
- perhaps move elsewhere ?
- domains and ranges - problem with multiple domains and ranges
- metaclasses and extensibility - ?
- no structure for information in RDF(S)
- other issues
- RDF and RDFS are not good layers
- both provide simple stuff, but both also provide suspect stuff
- RDF - triples / reification
- RDFS - frames / global ranges, but no local restrictions
- RDF gives meaning to all syntax
- makes it hard to define extensions
- what is a URI? - syntax and semantics
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST