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

RE: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document)

From: Ziv Hellman <ziv@unicorn.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:08:07 +0200
Message-ID: <6194CD944604E94EB76F9A1A6D0EDD232E1DEF@calvin.unicorn.co.il>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

>
>From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
>Subject: Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: 
>UPDATE: status of    longer version of layering document)
>Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:12:35 +0100
>
>[...]
>
>> option 1 is very nice but could only be chosen if at least 
>one of the following fixes was made to RDF(S):
>> 1a move rdf:type to the meta-theory
>> 1b stratify RDFS 
>> 1c allow for un-asserted triples in RDF
>> (and perhaps 1a and 1b are the same if someone could explain 
>it to me)
>> 
>> Looks like the next steps would be to get a sounding from 
>RDF Core on 1a-c.
>> If these are all out, we now where we stand.
>> If at least one of these could be in, we have to choose 
>between 1 and 3.
>> 
>> Frank.

We keep mentioning soliciting opinions from the RDF Core group. But has
anyone yet taken the step of actually knocking on the metaphorical door
of the RDF Core working group conference room and begun any dialogue
with them on the contentious subject matter? If yes, what has been the
initial response? If not, who volunteers to do this?
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 12:09:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:47 GMT