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

Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:14:10 -0400
Message-Id: <p05101508b8ec5d81f5ae@[192.168.1.46]>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org, Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
At 12:31 PM -0500 4/23/02, Pat Hayes wrote:

[snip]

>
>You know there have been several proposals for HOW to do it.  We 
>can't even get to that point if we have to keep persuading the 
>coordination group why it needs doing at all.  (I feel a bit like an 
>engineer trying to persuade the design oversight committee that we 
>really do need a tube from the fuel tank to the engine, and they 
>keep asking what effect it is going to have on the color of the 
>paintwork.)  But OK, here's a proposal: we provide some way to 
>indicate that a given namespace is dark (I'll leave the exact XML 
>syntax for this to someone else: invent something that leaves some 
>recognizable and unambiguous trace in the RDF graph.) Then the rule 
>is that any triple containing any uriref from that namespace is 
>dark. The appropriate choice for DAML for example would be to darken 
>the daml:list/daml:first/daml:last vocabulary.

Pat - the Coordination Group has asked the committee in Guus's 
message (which includes people who are in BOTH WG's) to make a 
specific proposal.  RDF Core chairs are on board for this -- we are 
asking you to do EXACTLY what you keep asking us to do - let you make 
a decision.  The goal is to come up with a specific proposal we 
(WebOnt) want and that the folks also on RDF Core (you, Jeremy, Jos) 
think is consistent with their goals.  My impression (Guus, correct 
me if I misunderstood) is that you will bring this proposal to RDF 
Core where the issue will be opened, discussed, and hopefully 
resolved.

But so far NO ONE HAS AGREED TO THIS ACTION, so if this group will 
accept it, please let us know.  If you won't accept it - let us know 
what you propose instead  -- otherwise we'll be forced to declare 
this issue closed and move on (which would obviously be silly given 
the effort that has been put into it)
   --JH
p.s. So far I've seen many of the members of the task force send 
SEPARATE proposals saying "here's how" -- we need one consensus one 
-- if you guys can't agree, how can you expect the rest of us to???



At 1:35 PM +0200 4/23/02, Guus Schreiber wrote:
>PROPOSED ACTION: for the "dark triple task force" (Jeremy Carroll,
>Jonathan Borden, Jos de Roo, Massimo Marchiori, Pat Hayes, Peter
>Patel-Schneider)
>
>Yesterday at the telecon of the Semantic Web Coordination Group the
>status of the "unasserted/dark triples" request to RDF Core was
>discussed. The CG felt that a  clarification of this request is needed,
>in particular:
>
>1. Rationale for the request, including at least one understandable
>example which motivates the request.
>
>2. How do "unasserted triples" solve this problem?
>
>3. What do we lose (if anything) when adopting unasserted triples? 
>(See, e.g., Problems with dark triples approach, Jeremy Carroll Wed, Apr
>17 2002
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Apr/0132.html)
>
>The SW CG asks the Webont task force to come up with such a description
>by Monday May 6. Please indicate whether you accept this action and
>whether it is feasible to do this within the stated time frame..



-- 
Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
AV Williams Building, Univ of Maryland		  College Park, MD 20742
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 09:14:18 GMT

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