RE: Objective 4.6 -- additional semantic information

> 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