Re: requirement: rdfs query (for lack of a better name...)

On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 12:10:56PM -0700, Rob Shearer wrote:
> I could on at great length about how bad an idea I think this is, but
> I'll keep it short.

Uh... that's, well, less than ideal and not the least bit
persuasive. FWIW.

> Adding "just a little bit of inference" to the query language is the
> road to disaster. It just doesn't work that way.

Where in my requirement does it say "just a little bit of inference"?
Where does it imply it? I must have missed that bit. :>

And, besides, charter thwack:

  1.8 Derived Graphs

  The working group must recognize that RDF graphs are often
  constructed by aggregation from multiple sources and through logical
  inference, and that sometimes the graphs are never
  materialized. Such graphs may be arbitrarily large or infinite.

> What's more, adding support for just one particular flavor of
> supplementary semantic knowledge (RDFS) is great way to kill off use of
> any other knowledge sources. 

Uh... RDFS is hardly "one particular flavor of supplementary semantic
knowledge". That's about as perverse a description as I can
imagine. Besides, if you're worried about "killing off" OWL, that's an
argument to do RDFS in 1.0 and OWL in 2.0, not an argument not to do
RDFS at all.

Kendall Clark

Received on Thursday, 6 May 2004 18:24:16 UTC