- From: by way of <me@aaronsw.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 16:12:27 -0400
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
[caught in the spam trap -rrs] Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 16:00:03 -0400 (EDT) Old-Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 14:59:51 -0500 From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jan Grant <cmjg@mercury.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> On Monday, July 23, 2001, at 11:02 PM, pat hayes wrote: > I guess there is a genuine cultural clash here. Are we supposed > to define a precise meaning for RDF, or are we supposed to take > a breezy hack-it-up-if-we-need-it attitude to what RDF is all > about? I'm quite happy to take either road, but we need to get > the question clear, since the two attitudes arent really > compatible. The breezy approach has the merit of making > anything as precise as a model theory entirely pointless, so I > would have a lot less work to do. Maybe we should keep it breezy for 1.0 and save the model theory for 2.0. I think it'll be sort of hard to retrofit semantics onto RDF when many folks haven't followed them (as we've seen). It also gives the whole group less work to do and a chance to spend time on issues that will affect the entire RDF community (as opposed to the logicians, etc. who are interested in a model theory). -- [ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2001 16:13:32 UTC