Re: A modest proposal for reforming RDF

I started to read thru your proposal... I got confused by a lot of the
details, and I expect to ask you about that presently.

Meanwhile...

Drew McDermott wrote:
[...]
> If by "data model" you mean the graph model, then yes, it's the graph
> model I don't like.  I wouldn't say it's insufficently expressive; the
> problem seems to be that it expresses too much.

I don't really see what your language has to do with RDF, if you're
not serializing a graph.

Serializing a graph is what RDF is all about; semistructured data,
graph merging, all that.

It's reasonable to conclude, after the sort of investigation that
we've been doing, that trying to shoehorn logical formulas
into RDF is a losing game, and take some different approach
such as yours. But I wouldn't call that "reforming RDF";
I'd just call it a new language.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/