W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 1999

Re: [www-rdf-interest] <none>

From: Sankar Virdhagriswaran <sv@crystaliz.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 08:04:47 -0500
Message-ID: <004301bf5134$55d51380$e6ea7392@honeybee>
To: "Sean Luke" <seanl@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <jhendler@darpa.mil>, <heflin@cs.umd.edu>
> of use doesn't argue against including such things for those groups which
> *do* choose to use inferences.
>

No, it doesn't. However, your message came in the middle of a discussion
about simplifying RDF. So, I thought you were proposing that the
simplification *has to* involve supporting inferencing at the core.

> schema can subscribe.  A basic level would have no inferential semantics.

The details have to be worked out of course. I think it is essential that we
get the non inferential core out ASAP and build momentum using that release.
As you pointed out the current RDF has features for which computational
complexity has not been thought through. IMHO, this is the sort of
simplification we should go for first.

> features of even lowly RDBMS, while making it difficult to create more
> general mechanisms that cover these warts for those more advanced agents
> which will handle general semantics in the future.
>

Some (not all) of these features are supported by ODBMS. However, I agree
with your point. The features you point would lead to one constructing an
ODBMS (assuming OQL like queries) that needs to scale to the web if one is
interested in constructing a search engine analog -- a very ambitious
proposal. This is why I have been asking for simplification of the kind you
indicate in your layering paragraph.

I think we are together on this.
Received on Tuesday, 28 December 1999 08:06:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:42 GMT