Re: Summary and some analysis: New Semantics Initiative

Brian,

 You have summarized well.

  As you point out, there are two distinct issues. One is that of dark 
triples. We don't have a choice about that. If we want to allow webont 
layering, without us or them getting non-monotonic, we have to provide it.

  About axiomatic definitions of languages: I am not surprised at the 
reaction of Peter F Patel Schnieder and Ian Horrocks. They have in the 
past made it very clear that they do not, as a matter of principle, like 
axiomatic definitions of languages.
I would like to get a wider sample, especially from the folks building 
stuff (like Libby, Connolly, ...).

  What we are proposing is relatively old-hat. There may be discussions 
of style, but not of substance. So, I don't expect much time to get 
spent on this. If anything, it will save us time by clarifying a bunch 
of issues. Given the number of different folk who have responded saying 
that it would be a useful part of rdf specs, even if it does not get 
used by webont, I humbly propose that we do.

guha