RE: I can accept... (Was: Re: Objective 4.6: additional semantic knowledge)

The proposed rewording of my proposed rewording seems to be nothing but
a removal of the reference to SWRL. I included that language in the list
quite intentionally--I felt it was important to include a language that
can be used to describe RDF models but does NOT necessarily have any RDF
encoding.

Why are we working so hard to make sure not to mention SWRL?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kendall Clark [mailto:kendall@monkeyfist.com] 
> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 11:10 AM
> To: Rob Shearer
> Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> Subject: I can accept... (Was: Re: Objective 4.6: additional 
> semantic knowledge)
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 04:52:52PM -0700, Rob Shearer wrote:
> 
> > 4.6 Additional semantic knowledge
> > It should be possible for knowledge encoded in other 
> semantic languages,
> > such as RDFS, OWL, and SWRL to affect the results of 
> queries about RDF
> > graphs.
> 
> In the interests of making progress, I'm willing to accept Rob's
> version, above, of my original proposal.  In the current UC&R doc,
> my original is 4.6 and Rob's variant is 4.6a.
> 
> So, I'd be willing to accept a modest reworking of 4.6a:
> 
> Additional Semantic Information
> 
> It should be possible for knowledged encode din other semantic
> languages -- for example: RDFS, OWL, etc. -- to affect the results of
> queries about RDF graphs.
> 
> In fact, unless someone objects, I'd like to make that the language in
> the document and the version which we vote on at some point.
> 
> Best,
> Kendall Clark
> 
>

Received on Monday, 17 May 2004 15:06:24 UTC