- From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:25:36 +0100
- To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- CC: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
On 21-12-2011 01:02, David Wood wrote: > > On Dec 19, 2011, at 5:28 PM, Richard Cyganiak<richard@cyganiak.de> wrote: > >> On 16 Dec 2011, at 17:45, Pat Hayes wrote: >>>> Nor is it clear that triples in different files or at different places belong to different graphs. In RDF 2004, we can very well believe that there is just one giant graph composed of all triples ever published online. >>> >>> Indeed. Is this a problem? >> >> Yes, because almost everything in it is wrong, outdated, contradictory, or irrelevant to my task at hand. > > Hmm. A serious problem that we have in the RDF WG is that many smart people have different perspectives. We simply must learn to use disagreement as opportunities to discover what the perspectives of others are. We cannot use those disagreements to become petty or impolite. > > I disagree, Richard, that almost everything in Pat's statement represents a view incompatible with the Semantic Web. It may represent a radically different perspective suitable to Linked Data. So be it. However, RDF must serve both interests. > > I am also disappointed with the tone of many the recent emails (not just this one). Please keep your tone civil and your manner professional within WG correspondence. Attempting to see other people's perspectives will help to do that. > [bad timing for me to be offline, which, I'm afraid, I have been too much anyway] +2 for the tone, but I understand the frustration. Going through the use cases is good, as long as we try to define concrete test cases for each of them. Guus > Regards, > Dave >
Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2011 15:26:14 UTC