- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 18:15:11 -0400
- To: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "patrick hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
patrick hayes wrote: .. > > >It seems that unless this is done in an > >unambiguous fashion, any formal infrastructure built on top is sort of like > >rearranging, err straightening, deck chairs ... > > Good analogy. At least the inference machines can be built so that > they keep the deck-chairs straight. Not much, but a start. Better > than each deck chair having its own compass. My view is that something like OWL and/or RDFS is needed define the meaning of the URI reference e.g. the class which is identified by the URI ref. But we need to _say that_ and deal with what is at the end of the URI reference (rather than continue to hand wave about what a URI reference itself means). > > I don't quite understand why people seem to think that to insist on > the SW content exchange languages having a clear semantics is somehow > taking a stance against the existence of social conventions. Don't mistake my position. Clear semantics is vitally important. But moreover, the _RDF model theory itself_ is perhaps not nearly as important as the mechanism to "layer" model theories in a sensible fashion -- which is something that the most current RDF MT WD appears woefully inadequate in addressing. So I am really just saying that since base RDF inferencing itself isn't so useful, that unless we can meaningfully layer model theories (and if you don't like this term, then I leave to to figure out what I mean :-)) that _the RDF model theory_ is not useful. Not a position against clear semantics, rather a position against _a semantics that is so rigid it becomes not useful_. So I've had a chance to skim through your latest idea at layering model theories and while I can't comment on the implementation, this is clearly the correct idea (of course just IMHO) Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 18:20:08 UTC