- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:53:34 +0100
- To: "R.V.Guha" <guha@guha.com>
- Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 14:01 12/06/2002 -0700, R.V.Guha wrote: [...] > About axiomatic definitions of languages: I am not surprised at the > reaction of Peter F Patel Schnieder and Ian Horrocks. They have in the > past made it very clear that they do not, as a matter of principle, like > axiomatic definitions of languages. Fair enough, and I should make it clear that Peter was very open that his motivation derived from a stylistic concern that axiomatic representations of semantics are more error prone. >I would like to get a wider sample, especially from the folks building >stuff (like Libby, Connolly, ...). Just so. > What we are proposing is relatively old-hat. There may be discussions of > style, but not of substance. So, I don't expect much time to get spent on > this. If anything, it will save us time by clarifying a bunch of issues. which? > Given the number of different folk who have responded saying that it > would be a useful part of rdf specs, references - with particular emphasis on specific ways it will be useful? I've got a sense that people in the WG are supportive of this, but I'm concerned that its supporters in their enthusiasm for it are being a little over zealous in their claims. > even if it does not get used by webont, I humbly propose that we do. I want to take the sense of the WG on this, but I would like the WG to know that I have procedural concerns: o this is being rushed - and the need for speed is not clear to me. I believe that many of the issues of M&S arose from changes made late in the process o it is being put together by only a subset of the community interested in this area which does not provide an adequate basis for consensus. I suppose I might as well be open about one of my worries here. If a subset of the logicians go one way in RDFCore, and a different subset go a different way in webont then we will be left with a war between the WG's. I still think that the right way to do this is to lock all the logicians in a room without a lavatory with all the beer they can drink until they agree on a solution and advise both WG's accordingly. o the non-normative status of the proposed new document means that webont can't build a normative spec on it and that does not seem good enough to resolve the issue that is the motivation for doing this. I would like to hear the WG's thoughts on: o to address this problem the solution must be normative; W3C notes and non-normative appendices don't hack it. o the consensus process must be open to all with a stake in the issue Brian
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2002 13:09:52 UTC