- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:38:33 -0500
- To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <52D9BEF9.3030507@openlinksw.com>
On 1/17/14 5:45 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote: > Henry, this is not crazy. This is simply a practical way of making > progress. We have two sets of people reading the text to mean > different things. Not withstanding the fact that one of these two sets > counts everyone in the WG but you and the other is a singleton called > Henry, why isn't it reasonable to turn to the author to arbitrate and > tell us whether the proposed use is in the spirit of the spec or not? > -- > Arnaud Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group Because RDF is supposed to enable you resolve these kinds of issues i.e., by way of vocabulary/ontology and the relation semantics expressed in the vocabulary/ontology. Referring to the RFC as gospel, in this context (RDF based spec construction) is quite contradictory and problematic over the longer term. We need a proper definition of an interaction modality indicator that's both *human* and *machine* comprehensible, the very thing RDF facilitates [1]. [1] http://bit.ly/LhsWjP -- description of RDF . -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Friday, 17 January 2014 23:38:55 UTC