Thursday, December 30, 2004
Translating Semantic Web languages into SCL
Translating Semantic Web languages into SCL: "Pat Hayes, IHMC
The three SWeb languages so far given W3C 'recommendation' status (RDF [RDF], RDFS [RDFS] and OWL[Webont]) can all be translated straightforwardly into SCL. This document gives full translations, showing how to express all of the content of these languages directly in SCL.
Very little of this is new or original. The translations follow a number of standard conventions: classes map into unary relations, properties into binary relations, and expression forms in OWL and RDFS map into particular patterns of quantification applied to boolean combinations of atoms built from these relations. These more elaborate languages (i.e RDF semantic extensions, c.f. [RDF-Semantics]) also require adding axioms which describe their semantic assumptions explicitly; this is along the lines used by Fikes and McGuinness [Fikes&McGuinness] in their axiomatic semantics for DAML (the precursor to OWL) and also suggested in a W3C note [Lbase]. Datatyped literals are handled by using functions representing the datatypes, in a uniform way.
Throughout this document, examples of RDF, RDFS and OWL text are rendered in italics, while SCL text is rendered as code. Three-letter strings such as sss, ppp are used to indicate generic components of expressions, and when giving translations (usually in the form of tables) a change of rendering indicates the application of the translation in question, so that if ppp indicates some expression in RDF or OWL, then ppp indicates the result of translating that expression into SCL syntax using the conventions in the table. The SCL core syntax [SCL] and the N-triples notation for RDF [RDFTestCases] are used throughout."
The three SWeb languages so far given W3C 'recommendation' status (RDF [RDF], RDFS [RDFS] and OWL[Webont]) can all be translated straightforwardly into SCL. This document gives full translations, showing how to express all of the content of these languages directly in SCL.
Very little of this is new or original. The translations follow a number of standard conventions: classes map into unary relations, properties into binary relations, and expression forms in OWL and RDFS map into particular patterns of quantification applied to boolean combinations of atoms built from these relations. These more elaborate languages (i.e RDF semantic extensions, c.f. [RDF-Semantics]) also require adding axioms which describe their semantic assumptions explicitly; this is along the lines used by Fikes and McGuinness [Fikes&McGuinness] in their axiomatic semantics for DAML (the precursor to OWL) and also suggested in a W3C note [Lbase]. Datatyped literals are handled by using functions representing the datatypes, in a uniform way.
Throughout this document, examples of RDF, RDFS and OWL text are rendered in italics, while SCL text is rendered as code. Three-letter strings such as sss, ppp are used to indicate generic components of expressions, and when giving translations (usually in the form of tables) a change of rendering indicates the application of the translation in question, so that if ppp indicates some expression in RDF or OWL, then ppp indicates the result of translating that expression into SCL syntax using the conventions in the table. The SCL core syntax [SCL] and the N-triples notation for RDF [RDFTestCases] are used throughout."
0 Comments:
