W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2005

RE: true/false in RDF?

From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:50:17 -0800
Message-ID: <0E36FD96D96FCA4AA8E8F2D199320E5204883CB2@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Geoff Chappell" <geoff@sover.net>, "Danny Ayers" <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Cc: "Seth Russell" <russell.seth@gmail.com>, <semantic-web@w3.org>

> and into the data, you have to try to model your data in ways that
> allow the machines to perform meaningful reasoning. Given the current

> the only way to license inferences. Hopefully more expressive
> (e.g. rules) will join the party at some point so we don't have to

I can agree that this is the tradeoff.  I believe that taking dependency
on RDFS, inference, and OWL today means that you chop off about 90% of
your potential integration partners.  It is similar to using WS-* -- you
get a deeper integration, but you lose the people who can only cut/paste
some JavaScript and use redirects rather than install Visual Studio.
And those latter people outnumber the former by a factor of 10:1.  Since
I am interested in seeing semantic web be a "reach integration"
technology, where everyone can use it just like the HTML and HTTP, I
prefer designs which do not require the full complicated stack.  The
full stack is fine for people doing enterprise integration.  

And I hate to see us making data modeling decisions based on
technologies which are not mature and are at best enterprise-only;
because for example, would we make the same modeling decision if rules
were available today instead of OWL?  I think class hierarchies are nice
for programming languages; not so much for data modeling.
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2005 23:50:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:45 UTC