ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] RDF and XML

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 09:14:17 +0800
Message-id: <7795A824-480D-4244-8B22-51F52F8BCC0B@xxxxxxxxx>
John,
  Is there no path by which CL can be brought into the fold of Semantic Web 
technologies?  Is there a document that can describe the advantages, 
disadvantages of rdf/owl/cl? Who would champion it through the W3C process?    (01)

m    (02)

On Jun 22, 2013, at 12:31 AM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:    (03)

> On 6/21/2013 8:27 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> if it's possible for you to reflect the fact that RDF's abstract syntax
>> is distinct from concrete syntaxes used for encoding and serialization
>> of data in various formats associated with RDF.
> 
> Of course.  And the abstract syntax for Common Logic is a *superset*
> of the abstract syntax of RDF.  Please remember that Pat Hayes and
> R. V. Guha collaborated to define the LBase semantics for RDF. It's
> also available from the W3C --  http://www.w3.org/TR/lbase/ -- and
> it happens to be a subset of the Common Logic model theory.
> 
> Hayes and Guha were following the original DAML proposal by Tim B-L
> in 2000, which included SWeLL (Semantic Web Logic Language) as a
> highly *expressive* superset of propositional logic, first-order
> logic, and higher-order logic.  Those *requirements* were not met
> by the DAML final report (2005), but they were adopted for the ISO
> standard for Common Logic.
> 
> Unfortunately, Tim was trying to be democratic, and he allowed
> the DL gang to use their misguided slogan of "decidability" to cast
> fear and doubt among the W3C voters who knew nothing about logic.
> So they voted against LBase and in favor of the OWL subset, which
> did not and could not respond to the requirements.
> 
> For a DARPA project that was accepted and funded, the developers are
> required to implement what they proposed.  By those criteria, the
> results of the final DARPA report were a *failure*.  Please compare
> the DAML proposal (2000) to the DAML final report (2005):
> 
>    http://www.w3.org/2000/01/sw/DevelopmentProposal
> 
>    http://www.w3.org/2005/12/31-daml-final.html
> 
> John
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>     (04)

_________________________________________________________________
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    (05)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>