W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: Objective 4.6 -- additional semantic information

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 20:59:00 -0400
Message-Id: <p06110493bced613a9a5e@[]>
To: "Rob Shearer" <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
Cc: "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
At 17:44 -0700 6/9/04, Rob Shearer wrote:
>>  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
>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.

I like the objective, I just want to get it stated clearly -- I can 
imagine an "extension" mechanism for doing this and, once again 
citing the charter, I see we are expected to take this into account 
(i.e. section 1.6 reads:
"Many items ruled out of scope by this charter require an 
extensibility mechanism for later implementation. This mechanism must 
allow for arbitrary combinations of orthogonal extensions."

So I think we actually have a mini-consensus (i.e. you and me) 
reached that we like the intent of this clause (your vague goal), but 
think we need to reword it -- let's work on that and see if we can 
make it clearer.  I do think it very important we refer to RDFS and 
OWL in this document (I'm much less convinced about SWRL, but we can 
argue that elsewhere) -- that's because those Recs do layer on RDF 
and IMO it is important we make it clear that this WG has considered 
those uses as well.
p.s. sorry to keep quoting the charter all the time, but as a former 
WG chair it was beaten into me by my team contact and is now a bad 
habit :->

Professor James Hendler			  http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler 
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-277-3388 (Cell)
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2004 20:59:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:27 UTC