- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 10:13:12 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: connolly@w3.org, www-webont-wg@w3.org
At 9:32 AM -0400 7/19/02, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu> >Subject: WOWG: Chairs reminder -- was Re: issue 5.10: a position statement >Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 09:10:37 -0400 > >> At 1:39 PM -0500 7/18/02, Dan Connolly wrote: >> > >> >OWL is only interesting inasmuch as, when making new RDF vocabularies >> >(or refining descriptions of old ones), >> >widespread deployment of OWL allows me to use owl terms to constrain >> >the meanings of the terms in my RDF vocabulary in such a way that >> >lots of other folks will understand those constraints. >> >> At 7:16 AM -0400 7/19/02, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> >In response to Dan's statement on his view of OWL, here is my view on RDF. >> >> >> >> Chair-neutrality very much ON >> -- >> >> Gentlemen - may I remind you both that the working group spent a >> great deal of time discussing this issue early in its existence, it >> reached a number of resolutions at the Amsterdam face to face on this >> issue, and has been proceeding quite well based on those resolutions. >> Whether you think we are too vested in RDF, or not enough vested, is >> immaterial -- we reached our decisions and should live with them. >> >> I see no reason to revisit or reopen any of those resolutions at this >> time, and urge you to have this important discussion on rdf-logic or >> other venue, but please not where it takes time from the complex work >> ahead still facing our WG. > >I agree that revisiting resolutions is problematic in general. However, I >am having a hard time seeing how the resolutions reached in Amsterdam >relate to issue 5.10. I feel that no significant progress will be made on >issue 5.10 without some background discussion like Dan and I just had. > >> thanks much >> Jim H. > >peter Issue 5.10 is OPEN, and if you confine your discussion to that issue I am happy to have it here. Discussion of whether OWL should or should not be in RDF does not seem to me to be the point of issue 5.10 and I would like that discussion not to occur here. Hope that helps clarify my "ruling" -JH -- 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) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 240-731-3822 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Friday, 19 July 2002 10:13:19 UTC