- From: Igor Mozetic <igor.mozetic@ijs.si>
- Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:34:00 +0100
- To: Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@deri.org>
- CC: bonatti@na.infn.it, Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>, Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>, edbark@nist.gov, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Dieter Fensel wrote: > > At 14:21 09.02.2006 +0100, Piero A. Bonatti wrote: > >> +1 !!!!!!!!!! >> >> On Thursday 09 February 2006 08:55, Francois Bry wrote: >> > By the way, this applies as well of many W3C recomm endations, as the >> > following examples show: >> > >> > a. the XPath processors developped in industry are all hardly usable >> > because they are exponential. Academic researtc h has recentlly shown >> > that polynomial evaluation is possible. >> > >> > b. implementing XQuery still is the subject of academic research and >> far >> > way from being solved. >> > >> > c. RDF bnodes are a serious challenge for efficient reasoning which, to >> > the best of my knowledge, is far from being solved. >> > > > > Indeed, this is something very stupid about RDF. Why is this a > recommendation > to repeat similar mistakes for RIF? Shouldn't be OWL added to the list as well? In general, it seems that IETF process of accepting Internet standards/RFCs (the requirement for prior implementation and testing) works well. Maybe at least for RIF we should try to stay closer to operational recommendations. -Igor
Received on Friday, 10 February 2006 08:35:46 UTC