W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > October 2004

Re: Revised draft of CBD

From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:34:40 -0400
Message-ID: <416A8BF0.8060004@comcast.net>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:

>>For example, 
>>every resource is related to every other, if OWL is in play, because 
>>their types are all subclasses of owl:Thing.  I don't think 
>>that anyone 
>>wants to end up with that in their supposedly bounded subgraphs!
> This is precisely why I consider CBDs the most optimal default
> form of representation for most applications.
> Other applications may need/want something different, but that also
> incurs the risk and overhead of larger (perhaps unmanagable) responses.
> So while I consider it truly useful to have a number of different forms
> of descriptions which are relevant to certain kinds of applications
> defined in a standardized manner, so that various services which offer more
> than one form of description can all agree on what they contain and
> what they are called, etc. we still need a default form of description
> that, all other things being equal, works reasonably well for most
> applications and avoids most of the scalability/magnitude issues.

I fully agree, and (if it wasn't obvious), my post (partially quoted 
above) was intended to support your position.


Tom P

Thomas B. Passin
Explorer's Guide to the Semantic Web (Manning Books)
Received on Monday, 11 October 2004 13:33:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:53 UTC