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

Re: UPDATE: longer version of layering document

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 09 Feb 2002 08:49:37 -0600
To: Dieter Fensel <dieter@cs.vu.nl>
Cc: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1013266178.1708.72.camel@dirk>
On Sat, 2002-02-09 at 07:29, Dieter Fensel wrote:
> >As an aside, I believe that I have made my views on what changes I want to
> >RDF and RDFS clear.  (For a recap, with some additions, see below.)  How
> >about let's propose them to the RDF Core WG?
> >Here are (most of) my proposed changes to RDF:
> >1/ Move rdf:type out of the theory into the metatheory
> >2/ Remove reification.
> >3/ Remove containers.
> >4/ Remove several syntax abbreviations.
> >I want 2 and 3 removed because they don't have appropriate meaning. I want
> >4 removed because it interferes with the correspondence between RDF and
> >XML. I want 1 moved because it causes semantic paradoxes in more-powerful
> >formalisms.
> I immediately agree on 1, 3, and 4. For 2, I would recommend a layered, i.e.,
> stratified approach like UML or MOF has. It is up to the working group chairs
> to decide whether such an innitiative looks worth while to try.

Well, I think the role of the WG chair is mostly to help the
group come to agreement on its position.

The group delegated much of the work on layering to the two
of you; if you two think 1/ contributes to addressing
the layering issues, then please, put in your proposal
to the WG something along the lines of:
	... therefore we propose that rdf:type
	be moved from the theory to the metatheory.

and after the WG reviews it a bit, we can send that
to www-rdf-comments and see what RDF Core thinks.

As to 2/ 3/ and 4/, it's not clear to me that those
directly relate to WebOnt/RDF coordination. I encourage
you to send your views, individually, to www-rdf-comments;
reification is being discussed now; collections
are too, to a lesser extent. I expect decisions
on both at the upcoming ftf.

I agree with 2/ too, though I haven't managed to
convince the RDF Core WG -- they have some evidence
that folks are making good use of the existing
reification vocabulary, and since it's in a W3C REC,
there's some obligation not to drop it completely.

Similarly for 3/; in my efforts to use RDF, I have
concluded that the collection vocabulary is useless;
I use first/rest/nil mostly these days. But again,
the user community is using <rdf:li> and such,
and the WG isn't convinced we should pull the
rug out from under them.

I don't mind the collection stuff as much
as the reification stuff.

Regarding 4/, the cost of removing shortcuts
looks higher than the cost of keeping them, to me,
at this point. But I doubt I've seen the technical
motivation behind PeterPS's side comment.
Peter, have you already sent details to
www-rdf-comments? If so, wanna help me find them?
If not, wanna send them?

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Saturday, 9 February 2002 09:49:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:41 UTC