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

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

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 09:19:40 -0400
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030509131940.GF21436@tux.w3.org>

* Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> [2003-05-09 14:18+0200]
> 
> >
> > 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".

Everything does have a type: Resource

> For syntaxes which omit redundant triples, then we can easily hypothesis an
> intermediate stage that inserts them. And anyway future syntaxes for both

If the hypothesising is so easy, why can't OWL do that for our current 
syntax?

> OWL and RDF are likely to either:
> - list every triple explicitly

depends what you mean by 'every'...
> or
> - be transformation based
> 
> either way I think your argument fails.

I've registered my discomfort with the OWL design, but I can live with 
compromise. It's time to finish these specs, and a few uglinesses are 
inevitable. This is one of the them, I guess.

Dan
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 09:32:53 EDT

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