W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Profiles intro

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:01:40 +0100
Message-Id: <7A687AC3-C439-47F3-B725-82B489F0F4D6@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

On 10 Apr 2008, at 14:06, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: Profiles intro
> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:11:30 +0100
>> On 10 Apr 2008, at 13:46, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>> Bijan,
>>> let us not start a row here. I may have been a bit harsh in my
>> reactions, Carsten hit a nerve:-) I do not think we should go down  
>> the
>> road of differentiating among profiles on the basis of whether  
>> they are
>> RDF-ish or not. Ie, can we set this aside and get back to the  
>> original
>> issue? :-)
>> Ok, I'll rephrase your point: Regardless of whether it's true or not,
>> RDFishness is not helpful in distinguishing fragments and may cause
>> extreme negative reactions. Thus, we should find other points for
>> guidance.
>> Cheers,
>> Bijan.
> Hmm.  This seems like ignoring the elephant in the bathroom.

You say that like it's a bad thing. If the elephant will only panic  
and poop all over the place if it thinks you're watching it, then  
ignoring it is the *right* thing to do.

Heck, if the elephant will flush and doesn't break anything, it's  
welcome to use my bathroom without my knowledge anytime it wants!

Seriously, it's clear that differentiating on "RDFishness" without a  
lot of discussion is going to cause allergic reaction even in  
sensible people. So let's be cautious not just to be understood, but  
not to be misunderstood.

Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 13:59:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC