W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2001

Re: A use case for anon nodes - action from telecon

From: by way of <me@aaronsw.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 16:12:27 -0400
Message-Id: <200107242013.QAA20763@tux.w3.org>
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;
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 

[ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2001 16:13:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:02 UTC