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

Re: layering (5.3, 5.10): Sardinia compromise?

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 14:52:04 +0100 (BST)
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.HPP.3.96.1020616143313.1188A-100000@steptoe.hpl.hp.com>

On Sun, 16 Jun 2002, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> I do not yet know whether the proposal is a compromise or not, and if it is,
> what what are the opposing positions that were involved in the compromise.
> peter
> PS: Yes, I do think that labelling the proposal as a compromise is
> premature, and may cause problems.

The "?" in the title was meant to carry some of that doubt ...
I perhaps should have emphasised that.

The question mark was also intended to convey a question of
is this a compromise? could everyone live with something like this?
does this enable us to avoid a further layering discussion now about
axiomatic semantics? (with Pat and Guha - see recent RDF Core traffic).

I think I see it as a compromise rather than a solution in the 
sense that it articulates the agreement rather than the 
disagreement between the various parties. Whereas most of the
other proposals seem intent on providing the 'right' answer.

Particularly in the light of the RDF Core discussion on
axiomatic approaches that are intended to embrace all SW 
languages I think the discomfort with the current dark triples 
position still needs addressing. 

I perhaps incorrectly had been reading Peter's XML presentation
syntax stuff [1] as a suggestion of, if we could keep to within this
bit of RDF/XML, then everything would be easier. I was trying to
phrase the suggested position as one which fitted with that as an 


Received on Sunday, 16 June 2002 09:52:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:44 UTC