Re: Discussion-Paper: A Logical Interpretation of RDF

RK:: "The Resource Description Framework in one of its encodings is
represented as a semantic network. Neither the semantics of the network
representation nor the semantics of the underlying RDF model are
formally defined. This may lead to different interpretations of the same
semantic network by different users/agents and thus, the
interoperability claimed does not seem to be justifiable with respect to

WL: Not sure if what I'm responding is germane/applicable but "formally
defined", "different interpretations", and "interoperability" may very
well be blessings served up by the "de-centralization" of all this
stuff. I think when Tim says (in relation to pre-RDF attempts at this
stuff) "The problem with all such systems was that they were
centralized." Just maybe the possibility of treating the "same semantic
networks" differently is a boon to rather than a bane on
interoperability? But then what do I know?


Received on Saturday, 26 August 2000 15:24:35 UTC