- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 12:26:23 -0700
- To: Reinhold Klapsing <Reinhold.Klapsing@uni-essen.de>
- CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
RK:: "The Resource Description Framework in one of its encodings is represented as a semantic network. Neither the semantics of the network representation nor the semantics of the underlying RDF model are formally defined. This may lead to different interpretations of the same semantic network by different users/agents and thus, the interoperability claimed does not seem to be justifiable with respect to semantics." WL: Not sure if what I'm responding is germane/applicable but "formally defined", "different interpretations", and "interoperability" may very well be blessings served up by the "de-centralization" of all this stuff. I think when Tim says (in relation to pre-RDF attempts at this stuff) "The problem with all such systems was that they were centralized." Just maybe the possibility of treating the "same semantic networks" differently is a boon to rather than a bane on interoperability? But then what do I know? -- Love. ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Saturday, 26 August 2000 15:24:35 UTC