On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 05:17:00PM -0500, John Sowa wrote:
> Unfortunately, I will be traveling on Jan 3 and won't be able to
> participate in the conference call.
>
> But one point I'd like to make is that we should emphasize the
> availability of Common Logic as an ISO standard and its potential to
> serve as an upward compatible superset of many current notations.
>
> In particular, the CL semantics is already a superset of the semantics
> of RDF(S), OWL, and many other languages of the Semantic Web. (01)
Just to qualify that a bit, since one might misunderstand that to mean
that CL is some sort of straightforward extension of RDF(S) and OWL. To
the contrary, RDF(S) and OWL both have a lot of primitive syntactic
constructs (e.g., set operators, property restrictions, etc) that are
not part of CL's primitive apparatus. To interpret these constructs,
RDF(S) and OWL (esp the latter) both have highly structured semantic
theories that include a number of primitive semantic categories not
present in CL (e.g., lists and classes). What *is* the case, is that
the languages for RDF(S) and OWL can be understood to be CL dialects and
conditions can be placed on the interpretations of those dialects to
such that the interpretations satisfying those conditions will be (in a
certain sense) isomorphic to the interpretations specified by the RDF(S)
and OWL semantics. Both can therefore be represented, in a precise
sense, in CL. (02)
-chris (03)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (04)
|