From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 06/24/01
So far this is only one person's effort. It might be better to see if any changes are made this week. peter From: Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Coordination between RDF(S) and DAML+OIL Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 22:40:59 +0100 (BST) > > Thanks, that's a handy summary. Mind if I pass this on to the relevant > W3C groups? (Semantic Web Coordination Group; RDF Core WG; RDF Interest > Group...). > > Regarding RDF Schema, I intend to open up discussion of some RDFS issues > within the RDF Core WG shortly. Will keep you posted... > > cheers, > > Dan > > On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > > 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