[www-rdf-interest] <none>

  I think there is a problem trying to separate RDF and DAML, they are two
different things, please, don't  try to explain a RDFS concept using DAML
Model. It's like if I propose to change the shape of the wheel because my
car needs a different kind of wheel.

  The reason you gived me about inference is not useful for me, please,
imagine that we define in our  schema that date could appear in person and
document, title could appear in document and name could appear in person,
if we have an object X with the property date and title, we know is a
document, if it only has a date property, we know is a document or a
person, inference will try both cases!!!!!!! inference is a all-solutions
algorithm, isn't it? don't worry about it!!!!!

  We lose a lot of power with the validation if we use your range/domain
approach. The schema should be only for validating documents. DAML should
define the inference rules, not RDFSchema, please, I'm tired to repeat
this, but RDF and DAML are so different, I read about the meaning of a
document.... in RDF there is no meaning!!!!!!!!! we only have SENTENCES and
I want to know if the sentences are correct!!!!!!!! if you want to add some
meaning to your RDF Document, you use DAML or whatever you want!!!!!

  Sorry, but people is mixing both concepts all the time, don't mix RDF
(and RDFSchema) with DAML. In your approach we can finally kill RDF and
RDFSchema, everybody can use DAML directly

  Nobody have still give a good point for the new approach.


Received on Monday, 19 November 2001 09:16:47 UTC