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

There seems to be some white box/black box confusion here.  The external
appearance (black box) is an RDF graph and that is what matters for a
recommendation; the design objective is just making clear that the RDF graph
may be realised/described within the deploying server (that is a different
view point - it's the deployment view) using some other system (and is a
white box oriented view).  


-------- Original Message --------
> From: <>
> Date: 17 May 2004 20:46
> On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 12:04:52PM -0700, Rob Shearer wrote:
> > 
> > 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?
> That's language I can accept, given the way things are for
> me, institutionally, as well as some of the semi-tech reasons
> I mentioned in back channel mail.
> I can equally well ask what is so important about SWRL, which
> isn't a standard and doesn't seem to have much behind it (?).
> So, I'll try again: I could accept language that replaced
> "SWRL" with "or a language that can be used to describe RDF
> models but which doesn't have an RDF serialization" -- or
> words to that effect. That is, that's my 2nd attempt to get
> what you say you want from "SWRL" w/out mentioning SWRL.
> I'll point out, as a side note, that *no one in the entire known
> universe* will read "and SWRL" to mean the things you want it
> to mean. I.e., putting my editorial hat on over my UMD hat,
> the "and SWRL" bit doesn't do what you want it to do, IMO,
> nearly as well as explicit, generic language.
> Kendall Clark

Received on Monday, 17 May 2004 16:04:26 UTC