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

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

From: Massimo Marchiori <massimo@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 02:35:51 +0200
To: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NGBBJNKIMLOPPCFHEJEMCECJCPAA.massimo@w3.org>

> There have been numerous conversations between WG members in Sardiia this
week.
> Some have been about layering.
> My take is that we have been arriving at a potential compromise.
>
> The goal of the compromise is to postpone the layering issues
> rather than tosolve them.
> i.e. we find a solution that is good enough for OWL 1.0; which satisfies
> nobody, but doesn't go over anyone's threshold.
>
> In essence the compromise would be to make OWL a weak semantic
> extension of a subset of RDF.
<snip/>

I missed the aforementioned conversation, alas, but notice
that we just need to read better the wowg's archives: the different-domain
proposal has been my point since the very beginning
(cf. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0037.html ,
also
reported at a teleconf...).
MikeS independenly also somehow supported this line of thought (look in the
archive
for his note on mapping different domains).
Incidentally, the different-domain approach has been the one I've been using
since
1998 in various forms to do all sorts of extensions to RDF (mainly
RDF-logics), happily avoiding
all the "same-domain, hence layering is impossible" line of thought.
Even more, for me the "same-domain" had *NEVER BEEN AN OPTION* (i.e., not
even *thought* about imposing  a same-domain layering chain), and took me a
while
to digest what Peter & Pat actually meant by their "layering is impossible"
argument (again, cf the above email...).

Conclusion: reading well other people's emails can save lot of time (and
energy...).

-M
Received on Sunday, 16 June 2002 20:36:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:50 GMT