W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > April 2002

Re: LANG: compliance levels

From: Enrico Motta <e.motta@open.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 10:22:52 +0100
Message-Id: <p05100301b8ed79a51e05@[137.108.25.86]>
To: Mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com>, Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
Cc: Ziv Hellman <ziv@unicorn.com>, Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, herman.ter.horst@philips.com, Peter Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, Raphel Volz <rvo@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>, Deborah McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>, www-archive@w3.org, phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
At 8:20 PM -0400 4/24/2002, Mike Dean wrote:
>
>Generalizing and going out on limb a bit, I'm concerned that
>we're giving RDF too much sway (ignoring charter issues).
>If WebOnt is successful, I expect most folks will use it
>rather than RDF.  This is typical in layered systems
>(compare the amount of application code written to use
>10baseT, Ethernet datagrams, IP, TCP/UDP, and HTTP which are
>(roughly) successive layers in the ISO OSI Reference Model).
>I'm a bit concerned that we're making decisions that will
>inconvenience millions of future WebOnt users for the sake
>of hundreds of current RDF users.


I very strongly agree with this point and indeed I said  similar 
things at the f2f in Amsterdam.  It is crazy that we are making our 
life difficult by imposing a RDF syntactic compatibility constraint, 
which may only be worth enforcing for a short period anyway. We 
should rather focus on semantic compatibility (and indeed we do!)


Enrico
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 05:23:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 July 2008 08:08:33 GMT