W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > June 2001

Re: Hammer vs. tweezers

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:17:27 +0100
To: melnik@db.stanford.edu
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <OFC2B75384.A9692BF0-ON41256A6A.0036DACA@bayer-ag.com>

Hi Sergey,

You made/make a strong inroduction!
[...]
> This proposal might seem radical, but I think most of the suggestions
> are incremental. The features listed above (namespaces, literals,
> reification etc.) are intended to be backward compatible and may be
> introduced in a different order. The semantics of a language "built on
> top of RDF" (like DAML/OIL) can be defined by restricting interpretation
> functions used in the existing layers or by defining new ones.
> Specifying "new" semantics in this way may result in a larger or smaller
> number of valid interpretations. The set of statements that are subject
> of semantic interpretation can be selected in an unspecified,
> application-specific way.

I'm trying to understand what you mean and I'm struggling
with that last sentence. No matter how many times I
read it, I'm not understanding it.
It's in particular that
  set of statements
  subject
  semantic interpretation
  unspecified selection
So what does that last sentence actually mean?

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2001 05:17:52 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:06 EDT