W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: I can accept... (Was: Re: Objective 4.6: additional semantic knowledge)

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 15:46:19 -0400
To: Rob Shearer <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040517194619.GA22465@monkeyfist.com>

On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 12:04:52PM -0700, Rob Shearer wrote:
> 
> The proposed rewording of my proposed rewording seems to be nothing but
> a removal of the reference to SWRL. I included that language in the list
> quite intentionally--I felt it was important to include a language that
> can be used to describe RDF models but does NOT necessarily have any RDF
> encoding.
> 
> Why are we working so hard to make sure not to mention SWRL?

That's language I can accept, given the way things are for me,
institutionally, as well as some of the semi-tech reasons I mentioned
in back channel mail.

I can equally well ask what is so important about SWRL, which isn't a
standard and doesn't seem to have much behind it (?).

So, I'll try again: I could accept language that replaced "SWRL" with
"or a language that can be used to describe RDF models but which doesn't
have an RDF serialization" -- or words to that effect. That is, that's
my 2nd attempt to get what you say you want from "SWRL" w/out
mentioning SWRL.

I'll point out, as a side note, that *no one in the entire known
universe* will read "and SWRL" to mean the things you want it to
mean. I.e., putting my editorial hat on over my UMD hat, the "and
SWRL" bit doesn't do what you want it to do, IMO, nearly as well as
explicit, generic language.

Kendall Clark
Received on Monday, 17 May 2004 15:47:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:19 GMT