- From: Enrico Motta <e.motta@open.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 10:22:52 +0100
- To: Mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com>, Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
- Cc: Ziv Hellman <ziv@unicorn.com>, Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, herman.ter.horst@philips.com, Peter Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, Raphel Volz <rvo@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>, Deborah McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>, www-archive@w3.org, phayes@ai.uwf.edu
At 8:20 PM -0400 4/24/2002, Mike Dean wrote: > >Generalizing and going out on limb a bit, I'm concerned that >we're giving RDF too much sway (ignoring charter issues). >If WebOnt is successful, I expect most folks will use it >rather than RDF. This is typical in layered systems >(compare the amount of application code written to use >10baseT, Ethernet datagrams, IP, TCP/UDP, and HTTP which are >(roughly) successive layers in the ISO OSI Reference Model). >I'm a bit concerned that we're making decisions that will >inconvenience millions of future WebOnt users for the sake >of hundreds of current RDF users. I very strongly agree with this point and indeed I said similar things at the f2f in Amsterdam. It is crazy that we are making our life difficult by imposing a RDF syntactic compatibility constraint, which may only be worth enforcing for a short period anyway. We should rather focus on semantic compatibility (and indeed we do!) Enrico
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 05:23:50 UTC