Re: [Paper:] Logical Interpretations of RDFS - A Compatibility Guide

I ask that you not use prejudicial language to try to support your claims.

I am not aware of any official decision that the ``integrity constraint''
reading of RDFS was in any way more favoured than any other reading of
RDFS.  Talking about an old decision versus a new decision implies that an
official change has been made to RDFS.  It would be possible, and much
preferable, to point out that the RDFS documents are vague and imprecise
and that the RDF Core WG is going towards one particular interpretation
over others.  This interpretation may not be the one that is embodied in
exising applications, which the RDF Core WG is supposed to keep in mind.

I am also not aware of any untoward relationship between the RDF Core WG
and the Joint US/EU ad hoc Agent Markup Language Committee (who created
DAML+OIL).  Unfortunately, there is the appearance of such a possibility as
the DARPA DAML project did fund some W3C staffers to do work that involved
the Joint Committee.  However, again, I do not know of any untoward effects
of this relationship, and I did mention the possibility over a year ago and
have since been trying, successfully I think, to open up the W3C work that
was performed for DAML to participation by W3C members.  Of course,
those of us who were involved in the creation of DAML+OIL have been
communicating with the RDF Core WG to make what we feel are necessary
clarifications and improvements.  That is, I think, both our right and our
duty both as W3C members and as researchers in the field.

You are free to do your own communication in support of your views, all I
ask is that you not be prejudicial or inflammatory.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research



From: tarod@softhome.net
Subject: Re: [Paper:] Logical Interpretations of RDFS - A Compatibility     Guide
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 16:08:37 GMT

> 
>   Sorry but I'm very tired about this, nobody can explain why the new
> decision is better than the old one, but everybody decided that is better
> because of DAML, and not everybody who wants to use RDF and RDFSchema,
> wants to use DAML.
> 
>   I just wanted to show that w3c took a decision influenced by some
> external party.
> 
>   Regards,
>           Marc
>  
>   PD: and excuse me for my english if I could discuss this in spanish I
> would explain it much better.
> 
> 
> William Loughborough writes:
> 
> > 
> > >Marc:: ...why the hell don't we forget DAML... to explain RDFSchema. RDF 
> > >and RDFSchema..."
> > >
> > >Peter:: I strongly protest this
> > 
> > Somebody needs a nap/time-out? =|;~)>
> > 
> > --
> > Love.
> > EACH UN-INDEXED/ANNOTATED WEB POSTING WE MAKE IS TESTAMENT TO OUR HYPOCRISY
> >

Received on Monday, 19 November 2001 12:45:17 UTC