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

Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 04:58:11 -0400
To: schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020425045811R.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
Subject: Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:50:59 +0200

> "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> > There has already been quite a number of statements of the rationale for
> > this request and quite a number of examples that motivate the request.
> > Without a clearer statement from the CG, how can the task force determine
> > what to do?
> > 
> > > 2. How do "unasserted triples" solve this problem?
> > 
> > Again, there have been quite a number of statments of how dark triples
> > solve this problem.  In general, there is an argument as to how the problem
> > comes about, and dark triples destroys one of the premises of this
> > argument.
> > 
> 
> Yes, sure, much of this has already been on the table, but it is
> distributed over long threads and it is not always clear who agrees to
> what. 
> 
> The key point of the request of the SWCG is to get precisely one
> note/statement on the dark-triple requirement on which the people
> involved all agree and which contains all the indicated elements
> (motivation, example, etc.).
> 
> Guus

I believe that there have been several statments of the problem.  I'm
willing to spend some time, once more, to put together something on the
issue.   So I will at least add what Pat has said to what I have said.
However, this has already passed the point of diminishing returns,
and is getting very close to the point of negative returns.

As Pat said, there is something rotten in the vision of RDF.  That's
actually fine by me, except that WebOnt has to not only live with RDF, but
also has to live with the RDF vision.  Pat understands the problem, and is
also on the RDF Core WG.  If he cannot convince the RDF Core WG that there
is something wrong in the vision of RDF, how can anything that I produce do
better?

At this point, I'm quite willing to part ways with the RDF vision.  If that
means that what I produce will not fit the WebOnt charter as it stands, then
either the charter will be changed or the stuff that I produce will not be
in WebOnt.

:-(

peter
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 05:10:05 GMT

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