Re: [Paper:] Logical Interpretations of RDFS - A Compatibility Guide from tarod@softhome.net on 2001-11-19 (www-rdf-interest@w3.org from November 2001)

From: <tarod@softhome.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 16:08:37 GMT
To: love26@gorge.net (William Loughborough)
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, conen@gmx.de, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <20011119160837.7721.qmail@softhome.net>

  Sorry but I'm very tired about this, nobody can explain why the new
decision is better than the old one, but everybody decided that is better
because of DAML, and not everybody who wants to use RDF and RDFSchema,
wants to use DAML.

  I just wanted to show that w3c took a decision influenced by some
external party.

  Regards,
          Marc

  PD: and excuse me for my english if I could discuss this in spanish I
would explain it much better.

William Loughborough writes:

> 
> >Marc:: ...why the hell don't we forget DAML... to explain RDFSchema. RDF 
> >and RDFSchema..."
> >
> >Peter:: I strongly protest this
> 
> Somebody needs a nap/time-out? =|;~)>
> 
> --
> Love.
> EACH UN-INDEXED/ANNOTATED WEB POSTING WE MAKE IS TESTAMENT TO OUR HYPOCRISY
>

Received on Monday, 19 November 2001 11:43:21 UTC