On Feb 4, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: (01)
>> It
>> is essential that the representation is computer interpretable, as
>> interoperability is the goal of IDEAS - still doesn't rule out
>> barcoded body
>> parts, you'll note.
>>
>> I still can't see RDFS and RDF as anything other than syntax
>> (sorry, we
>> might have to disagree on this)
>
> You are simply wrong about this. I'm not pulling rank or anything,
> but RDF/S is pretty tightly described in the W3C specs, which are
> quite clear on what parts are normative, and the model-theoretic
> semantics is normative. So for example if you say that
> rdfs:subClassOf is just syntax, so you will choose to interpret it
> as the motherOf relation, then you are not using RDFS. You are using
> RDFS syntax in some other, non-RDFS, way. (02)
I'm not sure Ian is 100% wrong. Or if he is wrong, then he is at least
in good company. Where OWL is concerned, it's common to treat RDF as a
syntax - perhaps just because it simplifies things tremendously. See
for example: (03)
"OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Mapping to RDF Graphs"
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-mapping-to-rdf-20081202/
"This document defines a mapping of OWL 2 ontology into the RDF
**syntax**, and vice versa. " (04)
You'll have to forgive us mere mortals for getting confused here; it
goes on to state "The syntax for triples used in this document is the
one used in the RDF Semantics [RDF Semantics]" - which links to your
document, which uses N-triples as the syntax. So is RDF a syntax? Why
doesn't the OWL document say "defines a mapping of OWL 2 ontology into
N-triples syntax"? (05)
There is a separate document for mapping to RDF semantics:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-rdf-based-semantics-20081202/
"This document provides the RDF-compatible model-theoretic semantics
for OWL 2, called "OWL 2 Full" (06)
But this can be ignored if one simply wants to use RDF/XML as a
transport layer for OWL (which I'm guessing will become less common
now there is a sensible XML syntax for OWL) (07)
Now obviously the story is a little more complicated here, and it
seems that the division between syntax and semantics is not entirely
agreed upon. But there is nothing to stop Ian defining a similar
mapping for his language, performing tricks such as making rdf:type
triples disappear into the ether. I guess you could say that the OWL
folks are "using RDF syntax (particularly rdf:type) in some other non-
RDF way" - if so, is that bad? (08)
Personally I don't really see the point, but I just thought I'd point
out that Ian isn't in the minority here. (09)
Cheers
Chris (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (011)
|