RE: model theory for RDF/S

> Should not the 
> members of
> the RDF Core WG, who are much more closely tied to W3C, 
> expend even more
> effort to obtain compatability between RDF and other W3C efforts?

(Disclaimer: I'm not a member of any W3C working group)

Certainly any W3C working group should strive to support other W3C
standards and methodologies -- and possibly work to promote them.

However, I don't see that any W3C standard should (necessarily,
as a matter of principle or practice) either exclude or discriminate
against interoperability with any non-W3C standard or methodology.

So, to that end, adopting a URI representation for typed data literals
could both be compatible with and promote e.g. XML Schema data types,
by defining e.g. a URI scheme for representing literal values according
to the XML Schema data type model; but also allows the employment of
any arbitrary data type model which is likewise case in a URI 
representation.

Thus, neutrality to W3C solutions does not equate to non-solidarity 
with the W3C, per se ;-)
 
> In closing let me mention one potential ramification of 
> divergance between
> RDF and other W3C efforts.   If RDF does not follow other W3C 
> efforts, then
> why should other groups, such as the DAML+OIL people, follow RDF?

Quite so, but I don't think that anyone has talked about anything
that could be construed as actual divergence from any W3C effort.
And agreed, any such true divergence, which prohibits or detracts
from the use of other W3C standards, should be discouraged.

Cheers,

Patrick

--
Patrick Stickler                      Phone:  +358 3 356 0209
Senior Research Scientist             Mobile: +358 50 483 9453
Nokia Research Center                 Fax:    +358 7180 35409
Visiokatu 1, 33720 Tampere, Finland   Email:  patrick.stickler@nokia.com

Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2001 03:54:40 UTC