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 15:16:55 +0100
Message-Id: <556CF3B7-C150-4F64-803B-76C71F315568@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

On 10 Apr 2008, at 15:00, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

This is the last (I hope) I'll post in this thread. At this point  
we're into wordsmithing and metastrategy...nothing that will affect  
the FPWD :)

I'd happily (for some value of "happily") take an action to draft  
some  new intro and primer text (trying to coordinate them) which  
takes the current debate into account. I'd also happily leave it to  
someone else :)

But to prevent Peter from still being wrong... ;)

>> Heck, if the elephant will flush and doesn't break anything, it's
>> welcome to use my bathroom without my knowledge anytime it wants!
> Yeah, but if the elephant wants to treat my bidet (rdfs:subClassOf)  
> as a
> toilet (rdf:Class) then I do care.

But this is better described in terms of metamodeling/owl full  
instead of a nebulous RDFishness.

Is suspect the nebulosity was as much what triggered ivan's reaction  
than anything else.

>> 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.
> Agreed, but this is different than not using "RDFishness" as a  
> differentiator.

Actually it is. All the fragments make sense with RDF data and can  
make sense with various views on RDFS.

>> Cheers,
>> Bijan.
> peter
> PS: What is an RD Fish?

Really Dumb Fish?

Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 14:15:07 UTC

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