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

RE: Objective 4.6 -- additional semantic information

From: Rob Shearer <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 14:56:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CFE388CECDDB1E43AB1F60136BEB497303FE54@rome.ad.networkinference.com>
To: <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

This is the intent I meant to encode when I proposed that objective. We
haven't adopted the objective, in any form, so you haven't voted on it
either way.

If we're writing a brand new query language for RDF, in addition to the
one that already exists for XML, and then need another one for RDFS, and
then another for OWL, and then another for SWRL or whatever else ends up
in the layer cake, and so on and so on, then I think the W3C *really*
needs to rethink its architecture.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kendall Clark [mailto:kendall@monkeyfist.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 2:41 PM
> To: Rob Shearer
> Cc: Jim Hendler; public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Objective 4.6 -- additional semantic information
> 
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 02:25:20PM -0700, Rob Shearer wrote:
> 
> > we strive to produce a query
> > language in which *any* extra knowledge which describes RDF 
> graphs can
> > play a role.
> 
> We do? Are you speaking for the WG when you say that? If so, when did
> we decide *that*? I would have voted loudly against it.
> 
> If you're just speaking for yourself, that's cool; but it would be
> nice if we could keep that distinct.
> 
> Best,
> Kendall Clark
> 
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2004 17:59:01 GMT

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