W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2001

Re: [Paper:] Logical Interpretations of RDFS - A Compatibility Guide

From: <tarod@softhome.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 15:56:26 GMT
Message-ID: <20011119155626.6494.qmail@softhome.net>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: conen@gmx.de, www-rdf-interest@w3.org

  Yes, that's true, but in this document doesn't explain why the new
decision is better than the old one. In the Wolfram document this is so
clear, the old decision was better.

  Regards,
         Marc

Peter F. Patel-Schneider writes:

> From: tarod@softhome.net
> Subject: Re: [Paper:] Logical Interpretations of RDFS - A Compatibility  Guide
> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 15:21:28 GMT
> 
> > 
> >   I just read the paper of Wolfram Conen and Reinhold Klapsing and I
> > totally agree with them. About the mail sent by Peter F. Patel-Schneider...
> > again and again you are explaining rdfschema in function of DAML+OIL, why
> > the hell don't we forget DAML to explain RDFSchema. RDF and RDFSchema
> > doesn't need DAML to be explained and the new approach for the range/domain
> > semantic does not make any sense excluding DAML.
> 
> I strongly protest this incorrect description of the message that I sent
> out.  The only mention to DAML+OIL in that message was that there was an
> axiomatization of RDF(S) as part of an axiomatization of DAML+OIL.  The 
> axiomatization of RDF(S) in that paper is completely independent of
> DAML+OIL.
> 
> >   Regards,
> >            Marc
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Lab Research
> 
Received on Monday, 19 November 2001 11:31:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:52 GMT