W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > December 2001

RE: proposal for working on the ontology language

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 12:17:26 -0500
To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20011211121726K.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: RE: proposal for working on the ontology language
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 16:57:51 -0000

> 
> Peter:
> >
> > 1/ Semantics
> >
> > 2/ Syntax
> >
> > 3/ Datatypes
> >
> > Who else is interested in doing significant work on this?
> 
> I am involved in the RDF Core WG on both syntax and datatypes and I am happy
> to contribute in these areas in WOW-G.
> 
> On syntax I note that Jim suggested actively using N3. If we wish to do
> this, we may wish to standardize N3 at the same time, since the current
> specs are rather loose working documents from TBL and DanC. This could be
> done similarly to how RDF Core have created n-triple.

Frankly N3 scares me.  It has this mystique, but there are many differing
specifications of exactly what it is, and there are no semantics at all for
some of its constructs.  I suggest not touching N3 with an eleven-foot pole.

> On datatypes I note that RDF COre WG are still actively considering this.
> One option foor WOWG is to actively engage with RDF Core on the datatype
> issue now; the other is to wait until RDF Core have determined an answer and
> then to build on that.

I would like to take the former course, more or less.  I would like for us
to at least keep track of what is going in the RDF Core WG, and let them
know our concerns as appropriate.

> Jeremy

peter
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2001 12:18:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:46 GMT