- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 20:59:00 -0400
- To: "Rob Shearer" <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
- Cc: "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <p06110493bced613a9a5e@[10.0.1.2]>
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 >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. 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. -JH 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