- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:10:02 +0100
- To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I think that this discussion may have reached the end of its useful life -- just reading all these emails is seriously impeding my efforts to get on with real work! On Wednesday we agreed on a slightly trimmed down version of Carsten's text for the FPWD, so the issue is moot (for the time being at least). Ian On 10 Apr 2008, at 15:01, Bijan Parsia wrote: > > On 10 Apr 2008, at 14:06, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > >> From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> >> Subject: Re: Profiles intro >> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:11:30 +0100 >> >>> >>> On 10 Apr 2008, at 13:46, Ivan Herman wrote: >>> >>>> Bijan, >>>> >>>> let us not start a row here. I may have been a bit harsh in my >>> reactions, Carsten hit a nerve:-) I do not think we should go >>> down the >>> road of differentiating among profiles on the basis of whether >>> they are >>> RDF-ish or not. Ie, can we set this aside and get back to the >>> original >>> issue? :-) >>> >>> Ok, I'll rephrase your point: Regardless of whether it's true or >>> not, >>> RDFishness is not helpful in distinguishing fragments and may cause >>> extreme negative reactions. Thus, we should find other points for >>> guidance. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Bijan. >> >> Hmm. This seems like ignoring the elephant in the bathroom. > > You say that like it's a bad thing. If the elephant will only panic > and poop all over the place if it thinks you're watching it, then > ignoring it is the *right* thing to do. > > Heck, if the elephant will flush and doesn't break anything, it's > welcome to use my bathroom without my knowledge anytime it wants! > > Seriously, it's clear that differentiating on "RDFishness" without > a lot of discussion is going to cause allergic reaction even in > sensible people. So let's be cautious not just to be understood, > but not to be misunderstood. > > Cheers, > Bijan. > >
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 14:11:12 UTC