Next message: Benjamin Grosof: "my notes from 8/19/03 JC telecon"
>Dear All,
>
>Peter and I have prepared a proposal for DAML/OWL rules. You can find it
>at:
>
> http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/DAML/Rules/
>
I think this proposal is (surprise, surprise) not sufficiently
sensitive to the RDF encoding requirements. First, I think it is
regrettable that the proposal is tied to the 'abstract syntax' for
OWL, which automatically incorporates the ugly and unnecessary
restrictions embodied in OWL-DL; it would be better stated relative
to OWL-Full, with the DL case as a syntactic/semantic restriction
(contained in the phrases such as "such that function S maps
i-variables to elements of R and d-variables to elements of LV
Trespectively." If these were simply omitted in the main
specification, no great syntactic or semantic harm would be done but
the transition to wider RDF usage would be greatly eased.
Second, the mapping to RDF graphs discussion (section 4) is
inadequate. It is not yet clear whether or not the rules could be a
semantic extension of RDF. (It depends on how the variables are
encoded in RDF, if they are so encoded, but in any case, there will
almost certainly be a useful sense in which the rule closure of a set
of rules can be required to be a semantic extension.) But certainly
the rules could be stated so as to allow arbitrary RDF encodings in
the antecedents and consequences, for example.
Pat
PS. I may be late for the telecon today and will be using a cell
phone: apologies.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell
[email protected] http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
--============_-1150806395==_ma============
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: Joint Committee telecon today 12
August</title></head><body>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Dear All,<br>
<br>
Peter and I have prepared a proposal for DAML/OWL rules. You can find
it<br>
at:<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite> http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/DAML/Rules/>
</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>I think this proposal is (surprise, surprise) not sufficiently
sensitive to the RDF encoding requirements. First, I think it is
regrettable that the proposal is tied to the 'abstract syntax' for
OWL, which automatically incorporates the ugly and unnecessary
restrictions embodied in OWL-DL; it would be better stated relative to
OWL-Full, with the DL case as a syntactic/semantic restriction
(contained in the phrases such as "s<font face="Gill Sans"
size="+1" color="#000000">uch that function S maps i-variables to
elements of R and d-variables to elements of LV</font><font
face="Gill Sans" color="#000000"> T<font
size="+1">respectively." </font></font> If these were simply
omitted in the main specification, no great syntactic or semantic harm
would be done but the transition to wider RDF usage would be greatly
eased. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Second, the mapping to RDF graphs discussion (section 4) is
inadequate. It is not yet clear whether or not the rules could
be a semantic extension of RDF. (It depends on how the variables are
encoded in RDF, if they are so encoded, but in any case, there will
almost certainly be a useful sense in which the rule closure of a set
of rules can be required to be a semantic extension.) But
certainly the rules could be stated so as to allow arbitrary RDF
encodings in the antecedents and consequences, for example.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Pat</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>PS. I may be late for the telecon today and will be using a cell
phone: apologies.</div>
<x-sigsep><pre>--
</pre></x-sigsep>
<div
>---------------------------------------------------------------------<br
>
IHMC<x-tab> </x-tab>(850)434 8903
or (650)494 3973 home<br>
40 South Alcaniz St.<x-tab>
</x-tab>(850)202 4416 office<br>
Pensacola<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab>
</x-tab><x-tab>
</x-tab>(850)202 4440 fax<br>
FL 32501<x-tab>
</x-tab><x-tab>
</x-tab><x-tab>
</x-tab>(850)291 0667 cell<br>
[email protected]
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes>
</div>
</body>
</html>
--============_-1150806395==_ma============--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: 08/19/03 EST