Re: Comments on ioctl (was: Re: big issue (2001-09-28#13))

>
>I disagree; I think it's important to be clear about what RDF 1.0
>is and what it isn't, and the sooner the better. Perhaps it's
>time to design RDF 1.x or RDF 2.0 that doesn't have these limitations.
>But we can't do that (inside a W3C WG) until we're done with
>RDF 1.0.

OK, fair enough. Ive been trying to serve two masters here, 
obviously. Maybe if it is just a fact that DAML+OIL doesn't in fact 
fit onto RDF, then we ought to make this vividly clear rather than 
try to fix it.

Pat

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes

Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2001 17:29:05 UTC