- From: Rob Shearer <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 17:44:08 -0700
- To: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> I think you missed my point - I was asking what you think objective > 4.6 adds - from the above I would assume you advocate removing this > objective, is that right? If not, what would it mean to have what > 4.6 says but not to have the ability to do RDFS or OWL inferencing? I did object to an early phrasing of this requirement, which I interpreted as making RDFS and OWL inferencing part of the RDF querying specificiation. I suggested a rewording of the requirement which expresses an admittedly vague goal: the ability to define future variants or applications of the language which might be used for querying RDFS, OWL, and future languages like SWRL. I think there is value in this as an objective in its own right, and I think it is realistic given my own experience developing an OWL query language which built around an RDF querying language core. If the issue is really so contentious and we can't find words to express such a vague goal, then I suppose we can live without any mention of other semantic languages.
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2004 20:45:56 UTC