W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: WOWG: first language proposal

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 23:14:07 +0100
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: pfps@research.bell-labs.com, heflin@cse.lehigh.edu, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF6027B3D7.5B6AAE31-ONC1256B93.0075BEEA@agfa.be>

> > [...]
> >
> > > I asked some time ago what are the great advantages of RDFS that
> > > justify us paying such a high price - I am still waiting for a
> > > convincing answer (and considering the price, the answer needs to be
> > > pretty convincing).
> >
> > there is *no* high price involved with http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/
> > it's as cheap a CMOS gate technology
>
> What about the layering/semantics problem, the verbosity and the
> difficulty of defining clear and unambiguous syntax?

based on my experience with the
http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfs-rules.n3
(in concert with http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/)
and the (as yet evolving)
http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules.n3
I havn't found any layering/semantics problem
I completely miss the point why
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ sh/couldn't evolve

I also think that http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/
is a clear and unambiguous syntax and reasonable w.r.t.
verbosity and the "list" issue is in progess

--
Jos De Roo
Received on Saturday, 6 April 2002 17:14:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:49 GMT