- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:26:01 +0100
- To: melnik@db.stanford.edu
- Cc: aswartz@upclink.com, Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Hi Sergey, [...] > I don't agree that anonymous nodes should be part of the abstract > syntax, and would suggest to consider this issue when cleaning up the > model. I'm convinced that (sufficiently) uniquely generated resources > serve the purpose better than "anonymous" resources (for instance, in > the example above you really might want to know whether Person1 and > Person2 are referring to the same unknown gray thing). Explicit > existentially qualified variables are IMO out of scope of our work. Maybe needless to say again that I have another IMO, but as our DanC says: "He Who Does The Work Makes The Rules" (and you do work a lot, wittness your GINF work which we apply with-IN AGFA as AGINFA or A-GINF-A or AG-IN-FA) and per fundamental human right "Anyone Has The Right To Fail" i would be more than happy to fail and have a better alternative, but saying that things are out of scope is not quite convincing. I think about a core as being round, so what's up/down? (more like in/out) I think there is at least a part of logic IN the core (maybe EC logic). I also agree that declarative programming is indeed a big step, but in the last 100 years we can find incredible contributions via the work of Gottlob Frege, J.A. Robinson, Pat Hayes just to name a few. So I wait for your arguments. -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Saturday, 16 June 2001 07:26:32 UTC