- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 00:38:31 -0400 (EDT)
- To: patrick hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
[snip] Thanks Pat. My gut reaction after talking to various people, re-reading, agonising, is that we should give serious consideration to running with this proposal. It is not as radical a change as might be suspected. It merely emphasises that the MT is one tool amongst many for capturing the essence of RDF, and that this WGs deliverables have a natural mapping into textbook logic, as (hopefully) will WebOnt 1.0, WebOnt 2.0 and various other future Semantic Web languages. I have to think about the dark triples stuff some more in the light of these proposal. Sometimes it all sounds like quasi-mystical voodoo, other times (like today) it seems like a re-characterisation of stuff from M+S'99, ie: http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/ [[ When an RDF processor encounters an XML element or attribute name that is declared to be from a namespace whose name begins with the string "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax" and the processor does not recognize the semantics of that name then the processor is required to skip (i.e., generate no tuples for) the entire XML element, including its content, whose name is unrecognized or that has an attribute whose name is unrecognized. ]] This stuff and the old (also broken) RDFS CR 'extensibility' section, ie. http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/#extensibility were our previous attempts at getting layering, future proofing right. I hope we get it right this time. Leaving extensibility to version 2.0 has inbuilt difficulties... Dan -- mailto:danbri@w3.org http://www.w3.org/People/DanBri/
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 00:38:36 UTC