From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider ([email protected])
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 <[email protected]>
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