W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 2002

RE: KR & W3C (was KR & Issue/bug tracking terms in RDFS?)

From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:32:03 -0800
Message-ID: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C1074D130C@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@cdepot.net>
Cc: "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

##### I called it "knowledge representation language" for a while.  It seemed very 

As someone who claims to want what's "best for the semantic web", it is ironic that you insist on using terminology which is overloaded, some would say deliberately misleading and deceptive.  Respectful use of identifiers is the first and fundamental rule of the semantic web.  Your language is *a* knowledge representation language; one which has no formal semantics, no discernable adoption and no academic or industry support.  From now on, I will call it RM-KR.

##### 1. RDF-Interest is discussing future directions for RDF, including the 
##### representation of context.  KR provides a useful vehicle for discussing these

This is highly debatable.  From what I have seen, it confuses people who are already overloaded trying to discuss these concepts using a mishmash of N3, NTriples, and RDF-XML.  And it's curious that you consider it apropos for you to "discuss future directions for RDF" when you seem incapable of understanding or using RDF in your e-mail messages.

##### 2. When members of RDF-Interest talk about specific "problems" they are trying 
##### to solve, I speak up and tell them how KR could solve their "problems".

I realize that this is what you are doing.  

Many people regard spammers as having little understanding of the people they target, unwelcome, overly aggressive in trying to sell things that the recipient does not need or want.  Most spammers on the other hand would claim to be helping people solve their "problems".  I wonder what this means?

##### 3. I think my KR language is better than other knowledge representation
##### systems.  KR is easier for humans to read and write, AND it is suitable for
##### machine processing.  I think the Semantic Web community would benefit greatly by 
##### adopting my KR language as a standard.

Considering that you seem to know very little about RDF and Semantic Web, it is surprising that you can be so certain that your way is better.  RDF and Semantic Web community are certainly spending time understanding "problems" and developing solutions.  Of course, that is not the same as someone shopping their "solution" around in search of "problems".
Received on Friday, 20 December 2002 14:32:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:57 GMT