W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

[concepts] Re: Web Ontology Working Group Consensus Review of RDF Core documents

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:53:36 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030221135015.00a6bc40@127.0.0.1>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

I agree that the description of social meaning issues is not currently 
well-handled.

Brian, I think this comment may be dealt with under the same issue that is 
raised by Peter Patel-Schneider's comments relating to "social meaning".  I 
trust your judgement whether to treat this as the same or separate issue.

#g
--

At 05:17 PM 2/20/03 -0500, Jim Hendler wrote:
>-------------------------------------------
>WOWG comments on the RDF Concepts Document
>--------------------------------------------
>
>We believe the RDF Concepts Document is a useful document and helpful in 
>understanding RDF and its use.  However, out Working Group did have some 
>concerns with respect to the issue of social meaning as discussed in this 
>document.
>
>The Web Ontology WG has mixed views on this issue and could not agree on a 
>specific consensus response in the time available.  However, we note that 
>a number of participants in the Web Ontology WG have serious reservations 
>about the RDF view on the social meaning of RDF.
>
>We did reach consensus to request that the wording in the RDF Schema and 
>the RDF Concepts documents be rephrased to explain this issue, and 
>particularly its impact, more clearly, as this has ramifications on other 
>languages, such as OWL, which are extensions to RDF.

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Friday, 21 February 2003 13:06:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT