Re: new semantics initiative

Pat,

<shortVersion>Cool. I like it.  Why do we have to do it now? </shortversion>

<pompousVersion>

To the extent that I understand it, I like the new structure that is being 
proposed.  It is intuitively appealing.  I also thank you for your efforts 
in clarifying the proposal before the face to face meeting.

I would like to see rapid comment on this idea from members of the WG.

 From procedural point of view, however, I am very concerned about 
introducing this into RDFCore at this late stage.

The primary motivation for this work is addressing the layering problem.  I 
can clearly see an argument that this problem is out of charter for this 
WG.  That argument is strengthened when you tell us that this proposal 
introduces a new semantics that is exactly equivalent to what we have 
now.  If this means that owl can be successfully layered on top, then I am 
absolutely delighted that we can proceed with our current semantics 
confident that the layering issue for owl, and other languages can be resolved.

I am also concerned to ensure that the webont folks don't feel that they 
are the victim of a flanking manoeuvre, where discussion of an issue of 
considerable import to them gets moved to another forum.

I am very keen to ensure that this promising work gets properly explored 
and discussed and will extend my efforts to ensure that happens in a proper 
manner.  However, the WG's current priorities are to get done with its 
current work.  May I remind everyone we are out of time.  Whilst I could be 
persuaded that the proper course for us is to address this now, I have seen 
no argument to justify that.  Whilst I will be guided as usual by the WG, I 
am currently minded to rule this out of scope and in that light, your 
efforts might be best employed completing work on the current model theory.
</pompousVersion>

Brian

Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2002 07:25:45 UTC