Three theses of representation in the semantic web

ABSTRACT

The Semantic Web is vitally dependent on a formal meaning for the constructs of its languages. For Semantic Web languages to work well together their formal meanings must employ a common view (or thesis) of representation, otherwise it will not be possible to reconcile documents written in different languages. The thesis of representation underlying RDF and RDFS is particularly troublesome in this regard, as it has several unusual aspects, both semantic and syntactic. A more-standard thesis of representation would result in the ability to reuse existing results and tools in the Semantic Web.

REFERENCES

• 1: H. Andréka, J. van Benthem, and I. Németi. Modal languages and bounded fragments of predicate logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 27: 217--274, 1998.
• 2: Franz Baader , Diego Calvanese , Deborah L. McGuinness , Daniele Nardi , Peter F. Patel-Schneider, The description logic handbook: theory, implementation, and applications, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2003
• 3: C. Baral and M. Gelfond. Logic programming and knowledge representation. Journal of Logic Programming, 19,20:73--148, 1994.
• 4: D. Beckett. Rdf/xml syntax specification (revised). W3C Working Draft, Mar. 2002. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/.
• 5: T. Berners-Lee. Weaving the Web. Harper, San Francisco, 1999.
• 6: A. Borgida and P. F. Patel-Schneider. A semantics and complete algorithm for subsumption in the CLASSIC description logic. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 1:277--308, June 1994.
• 7: D. Brickley and R. V. Guha. Resource description framework (RDF) schema specification 1.0. W3C Candidate Recommentation, Mar. 2000. http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/.
• 8: Common Logic Working Group. Common logic: Abstract syntax and semantics. http://cl.tamu.edu/discuss/cl-syntax-semantics.html, 2002.
• 9: Stephen A. Cook, The complexity of theorem-proving procedures, Proceedings of the third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, p.151-158, May 03-05, 1971, Shaker Heights, Ohio, United States [doi>10.1145/800157.805047]
• 10: M. Dean, D. Connolly, F. van Harmelen, J. Hendler, I. Horrocks, D. L. McGuinness, P. F. Patel-Schneider, and L. A. Stein. OWL web ontology language 1.0 reference, July 2002. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/.
• 11: Werner Nutt , Francesco M. Donini , Maurizio Lenzerini , Daniele Nardi, The complexity of concept languages, Information and Computation, v.134 n.1, p.1-58, April 10, 1997 [doi>10.1006/inco.1997.2625 ]
• 12: D. C. Fallside. XML schema part 0: Primer. W3C Recommentation, May 2001. http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/.
• 13: Dieter Fensel , Ian Horrocks , Frank van Harmelen , Stefan Decker , Michael Erdmann , Michel C. A. Klein, OIL in a Nutshell, Proceedings of the 12th European Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition, Modeling and Management, p.1-16, October 02-06, 2000
• 14: Dieter Fensel , Frank van Harmelen , Ian Horrocks , Deborah L. McGuinness , Peter F. Patel-Schneider, OIL: An Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web, IEEE Intelligent Systems, v.16 n.2, p.38-45, March 2001 [doi>10.1109/5254.920598 ]
• 15: M. Fernández and J. Marsh. The XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 data model. W3C Working Draft., June 2001. http://www.w3.org/TR/query-datamodel/.
• 16: M. R. Genesereth and R. E. Fikes. Knowledge interchange format version 3.0 reference manual. Report Logic 92-1, Stanford Logic Group, June 1992. Also available at http://logic.stanford.edu/sharing/papers/kif.ps.
• 17: M. J. C. Gordon , T. F. Melham, Introduction to HOL: a theorem proving environment for higher order logic, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1993
• 18: E. Grädel, P. G. Kolaitis, and M. Y. Vardi. On the decision problem for two-variable first-order logic. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 3(1):53--69, 1997.
• 19: J. Grant and D. Beckett. RDF test cases. W3C Working Draft, Apr. 2002. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/.
• 20: R. V. Guha and P. Hayes. LBase: Semantics for languages of the semantic web. W3C NOT-A-Note, Aug. 2002. http://www.w3.org/2002/06/lbase/.
• 21: Volker Haarslev , Ralf Möller, RACER System Description, Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning, p.701-706, June 18-23, 2001
• 22: P. Hayes. RDF model theory. W3C Working Draft, Apr. 2002. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/.
• 23: P. Hayes and C. Menzel. A semantics for the knowledge interchange format. In IJCAI 2001 Workshop on the IEEE Standard Upper Ontology, Aug. 2001. Also available at http:reliant.teknowledge.com/IJCAI01/HayesMenzelSKIF-IJCAI2001.pdf.
• 24: J. Hendler and D. L. McGuinness. The darpa agent markup language". IEEE Intelligent Systems, 15(6):67--73, 2000.
• 25: I. Horrocks. Using an expressive description logic: FaCT or fiction? In Proc. of the 6th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'98), pages 636--647, 1998.
• 26: O. Lassila and R. R. Swick. Resource description framework (RDF) model and syntax specification. W3C Recommentation, Feb. 1999. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/.
• 27: Drew V. McDermott , Dejing Dou, Representing Disjunction and Quantifiers in RDF, Proceedings of the First International Semantic Web Conference on The Semantic Web, p.250-263, June 09-12, 2002
• 28: Max Moser , Ortrun Ibens , Reinhold Letz , Joachim Steinbach , Christoph Goller , Johann Schumann , Klaus Mayr, SETHEO and E-SETHEO - The CADE-13 Systems, Journal of Automated Reasoning, v.18 n.2, p.237-246, April 1997 [doi>10.1023/A:1005808119103 ]
• 29: Leszek Pacholski , WiesL aw Szwast , Lidia Tendera, Complexity Results for First-Order Two-Variable Logic with Counting, SIAM Journal on Computing, v.29 n.4, p.1083-1117, Feb. 2000 to March 2000 [doi>10.1137/S0097539797323005]
• 30: L. C. Paulson. Isabelle: A Generic Theorem Prover. Number 828 in LNCS. Springer, 1994.
• 31: Alexandre Riazanov , Andrei Voronkov, Vampire, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Automated Deduction: Automated Deduction, p.292-296, July 07-10, 1999
• 32: Uwe Schoning , Robert Constable , John C. Cherniavsky , Richard Platek , Jean Gallier , Richard Statman, Logic for Computer Scientists, Birkhauser Boston, 1989
• 33: S. Tobies. Complexity Results and Practical Algorithms for Logics in Knowledge Representation. PhD thesis, LuFG Theoretical Computer Science, RWTH-Aachen, Germany, 2001.
• 34: F. van Harmelen, P. F. Patel-Schneider, and I. Horrocks. A model-theoretic semantics for DAML+ OIL (March 2001), Mar. 2001. http://www.daml.org/2001/03/modeltheoretic-semantics.html.
• 35: F. van Harmelen, P. F. Patel-Schneider, and I. Horrocks. Reference description of the DAML+ OIL (March 2001) ontology markup langauge, Mar. 2001. http://www.daml.org/2001/03/reference.html.
• 36: R. Waldinger. {DAML+ OIL} cardinality restriction axioms too weak, Aug. 2001. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdflogic/2001Aug/0000.html.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.4 Knowledge Representation Formalisms and Methods
          Subjects: Representation languages

Additional Classification:
  F. Theory of Computation
  F.4 MATHEMATICAL LOGIC AND FORMAL LANGUAGES
      F.4.1 Mathematical Logic
          Subjects: Model theory

General Terms:
Languages, Standardization, Theory

Keywords:
model-theoretic semantics, representation, semantic web