top-level Comment on lBase

I have quickly read the first 9 pages, I will do the rest this evening.

I have concerns at a high-level; I will give more detailed comments
tomorrow.

The high-level concerns are scope, and politics.

Scope:

Lbase is explicitly monotonic, and Lbase claims to be the base for all
SWELs.
However there are existing languages that in my mind fit on the Semantic Web
arctitecture diagram that are non-mon. e.g. XML Schema, RuleML. (Note the
former is explicitly mentioned on:
http://www.w3.org/2000/Talks/1206-xml2k-tbl/slide10-0.html
)

Thus I suggest the scope of Lbase should be narrowed to being a means of
expressing semantics for 'monotonic SWELs'

Politics:

Some of this seems to be an extension of arguments in WebOnt in another
forum.
This seems unfortuante, particularly since those arguments are being
resolved. I also dislike the use of phrases like: "quite intractable
problems" rather than a less extreme "difficult problems".

Given that this note is unlikely to be revised, I would suggest we seek
feedback from WebOnt, or at least Peter, before publication.

===

I am likely to abstain whatever the editors do - publication is useful to
move the debate forward, and is in charter; but I am unlikely to be
convinced that it is appropriate for the RDF Core WG to make a proposal like
this.

I am working on a doc that will reference this Note in order to
attack^H^H^H^H^H^H question some of its assumptions. Hence it is useful to
me, in order not to be tilting at windmills.

Jeremy

Received on Thursday, 24 October 2002 05:59:31 UTC