W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > April 2001

Re: in defense of lawyers - was RE: RDF semantics

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:07:11 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
At 04:47 PM 4/9/01 -0400, Dan Brickley wrote:
> > ...  There are many
> > useful representation systems that are on shakey ground.  However, such
> > systems run into problems when they are used as components of other
> > systems, or are used by people (or systems) beyond the initial core group,
> > or are used in ways that were not envisioned or completely thought through
> > by the initial core group.  If you think that a web representation system
> > that is supposed to form the basis of all semantic web work doesn't fit
> > into any of these categories then you don't need a firmly-grounded system.
> > If, on the other hand, [you can fill in this part] ....
> >
> > Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>I absolutely agree.   We created www-rdf-logic as a forum for those who
>_do_ see the need to use logic when designing representation systems for
>the Web. This list should not be a place where logicians have to justify
>their work, or its relevance to W3C's Semantic Web effort. Quite how we go 
>organising an "after the party" cleanup of the Web (eg. URIs, the murkier
>corners of the RDF specs...) is another matter. I expect to see, for
>example, the new RDFCore WG[1] take on board some of the clarifications to
>RDF (eg. RDFS semantics) proposed by DAML. But I have no instinct as to
>how far (or how fast) we can go in formalising some of the other key
>components of the Web (eg. the naming model implicit in

I, too, agree.  I think that, given the issues raised, the RDFcore WG needs 
to carry with it a clear understanding of these issues.  I'm trying...


Graham Klyne
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2001 10:48:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:34 UTC