- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:07:56 +0000
- To: www-archive@w3.org, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>, "Carroll, Jeremy John" <jeremy.carroll@hp.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>
- CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Jeremy Carroll wrote: > - tools and motivations > > Why o why are we bothered? For all of the use cases in POWDER UCR http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/NOTE-powder-use-cases-20071031/ I think that special purpose POWDER software is needed. However, the more that POWDER builds on other recommendations, in a manner that is fully compliant with those recommendations, the more likely it is that such special purpose POWDER software can be built cheaply, effectively and correctly. To the extent that POWDER deviates from the formal semantics of RDF and/or OWL, there is a danger that POWDER software implementors will end up fighting tools that conform with such semantics, as opposed to using them. However, from the point of view of the POWDER WG and users this is a 'shades of grey' issue, rather than a black-and-white conform or not. Minor deviations from the RDF and OWL semantics, while not something *I* would want to encourage, are unlikely to be too costly to the POWDER community. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 14 December 2007 16:08:44 UTC