W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > June 2002

Re: Summary and some analysis: New Semantics Initiative

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:54:38 -0400 (EDT)
To: "R.V.Guha" <guha@guha.com>
cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0206141141560.31600-100000@tux.w3.org>


On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, R.V.Guha wrote:

> If we leave that out, we will be quite far outside the scope of classical logics. I have no idea where to
> even begin broaching such questions in the W3C process.

(Yup, I thought the MTs made such assumptions, although perhaps less explicitly.)

Re your question -  where to discuss more blue skies stuff (I don't
consider Lbase blueskies) in terms of W3C Process:


i) The RDF Interest Group and its various spinoff lists are provided for
such purposes. eg www-rdf-logic, see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/

[[
The www-rdf-logic
list provides a forum for technical discussion
concerning the design of logic-based languages for use on the Web.

...

W3C provides the www-rdf-logic forum as a home for detailed technical
discussion of all approaches to the use of classical logic on the Web for
the representation of data such as inference rules, ontologies, and
complex schemata.
]]

Hmm, that mention of 'classical logic' might be offputting. It should have
been more pluralist; the subtext was probably that I didn't want people to
take up too much bandwidth with proposals for postmodern-fuzzy logics....

We also have a list www-rdf-rules, whose scope w.r.t. www-rdf-logic is
somewhat ill defined to date. I want -rules to be for practical
implementation testbeds etc., but it isn't currently being used much.



ii) we have the notion of 'Semantic Web Advanced Development', which is
the closest W3C gets to doing research. See SW Activity charter
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Activity and SWAD
stuff at http://www.w3.org/2000/01/sw/
-- most public SWAD discussions in this area are on www-rdf-logic, or in
the RDF Interest Group IRC channel. http://www.w3.org/RDF/Interest/#irc


Basic idea is to do 'pre-consensus' discussions rather than designing new
stuff by committee. The DAML+OIL group made use of www-rdf-logic for
discussion of their designs, before DAML+OIL was submitted to W3C. I
encourage other folk interested in 'logic on the web' to do the same.

Dan

(with RDF Interest Group chairs hat on)

-- 
mailto:danbri@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/People/DanBri/
Received on Friday, 14 June 2002 11:54:40 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:49:17 EDT