- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:00:31 -0400 (EDT)
- To: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Profiles intro Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:01:40 +0100 > 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! Yeah, but if the elephant wants to treat my bidet (rdfs:subClassOf) as a toilet (rdf:Class) then I do care. > 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. Agreed, but this is different than not using "RDFishness" as a differentiator. > Cheers, > Bijan. peter PS: What is an RD Fish?
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 14:11:19 UTC