Re: comments on Editor's Draft of UCR

From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Subject: Re: comments on Editor's Draft of UCR
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 17:32:07 -0400

> Hirtle, David wrote:
> > 
> > There are actually two alignment CSFS:
> > Alignment with Semantic Web -- RDF and OWL
> > Alignment with Key W3C Specifications -- XML
> > 
> > You're probably right that "Alignment with the Semantic Web" should
> > support "Widescale Adoption"...
> > 
> > Actually, I think the two alignment CSFs should be merged. The XML, RDF
> > and OWL reqs could all fit as "Alignment with the Semantic Web", for
> > example.
> 
> My understanding of the two different requirements was that one was:
> - "Alignement with widely deployed standards", which includes XML, but 
> not RDF at this stage; and which may include non-W3C standards. That CSF 
> is certainly related to the goal of widespread adoption. It is not 
> necessarily related to the goal of W3C consistency, but it might be 
> considered as supporting it;

Why should this not include RDF?  Isn't RDF a "widely-deployed standard"?  

> - "Alignement with the Semantic Web", on the other hand, does not 
> immediately support the goal of widespread adoption; but it clearly 
> supports the goal of W3C consistency.

Why does "Alignment with the Semantic Web" not support widespread adoption,
particularly as "Widespread Adoption" is defined as

	It is an explicit goal of the W3C that the Rules Interchange Format
	will have the maximum *potential* [emphasis added] for widescale
	adoption. Rules interchange becomes more effective the wider
	adoption there is of the specification -- the so-called "network
	effect".

> So, I suggest that we keep both alignement CSF; that the first be 
> renamed as proposed above and be linked to the goal of widespread 
> adoption; and that the SemWeb alignement CSF be linked to the W3C 
> consistency goal only. Re whether the deployed standard alignement CSF 
> should be linked to the W3C consistency goal or not, I do not know (in 
> the doubt, I would rather not, for the sake of simplicity; but the 
> argument is rather weak).

I do not think that it is a good idea to segregate the Semantic Web in this
fashion, as if it either does not contain "key W3C Specification"s or "widely
deployed standard"s.

> Christian

Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Received on Monday, 26 June 2006 21:47:06 UTC