W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > May 2003

RE: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2003-05-11

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 14:18:45 +0200
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDAEJMCBAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


>
> If they were just constraining the current RDF/XML syntax, it'd
> be bearable. But
> for this to be their legacy for all future syntaxes seems pretty
> heavy, given
> that the triples are implied.
>

No - strong disagreement.

In OWL there are many triples which are redundant because they are implied.
However, it is hard to tell which triples are redundant and which are not.
End users need clear and simply guide lines. One such guideline is
"everything must have a type".

For syntaxes which omit redundant triples, then we can easily hypothesis an
intermediate stage that inserts them. And anyway future syntaxes for both
OWL and RDF are likely to either:
- list every triple explicitly
or
- be transformation based

either way I think your argument fails.

Jeremy
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 08:20:57 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:29 EDT