W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: Editorial changes in Section 2.5

From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 11:26:38 +0100
Message-Id: <99DAEE09-9CB0-446C-A9B1-FE0C6EA98841@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>

On 31 Jan 2006, at 18:31, Pat Hayes wrote:

> And speaking now quite objectively, I do feel that this entire  
> semantics business has made the spec worse rather than better, and  
> that it is getting worse with every iteration. (There is an  
> elegant, simple, robust definition based on entailment, which I  
> suspect is probably what the original comments deploring the old  
> instance/subgraph definition had in mind; but this is not that.)

I wish we could find a more elegant and simple definition satisfying  
my main requirement of upward compatibility. By dropping this  
requirement, the most elegant would be the plain definition based on  
subgraph matching - without any mention to entailment.

Received on Thursday, 2 February 2006 10:27:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:50 UTC