- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 07:07:17 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: Peter Crowther <peter.crowther@networkinference.com>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Brian McBride wrote: [...] > I'd like to focus on my main question though. What are the relative > merits of 'extending' RDF v designing a new language for > expressing rules which operate on ground facts expressed in RDF. My preference is for the latter, setting aside matters of naming, acronyms, brands etc (ie. i'd always thought we'd do such a such a thing and call it RDF 2.0...). The naive triples world view can bring a handy simple information model to many applications in RDF 1.0's original problem domain (web sitemaps, thesauri, dublin core records, etc.). But I believe that common simple model can easily be overstretched and make things seem _more_ complicated than they did originally. RDF 1.0's reification mechanism being a classic case of this imho... Dan
Received on Monday, 4 June 2001 07:08:31 UTC