- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 18:25:27 +0100
- To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Peter, Let's learn from each other. I perceive your comments as reasonable, but to draw such conclusions seems at least a bit *fatalistic* to me ... First of all, I have the picture of TimBL's semantic web architecture http://www.w3.org/2000/Talks/1206-xml2k-tbl/slide10-0.html before my mind, and in that picture we see RDF/RDFS (RDFCore) to be a piece (of course it could be that you see another picture about which we could talk after we have seen it) and of course we should also have formal backup besides pictures :-) > The impact of flaw number 1 is that any attempt to use RDF or RDFS without > providing a separate semantics for its constructs is built on an unusable > foundation. The impact of flaw number 2 is that any attempt to use RDF or > RDFS to represent proofs, etc., will have to provide its own constructs for > most of the interesting information. I've actually only one question: what should be the least power of RDFCore to make the other pieces (daml+oil, logic/proof) most reasonable? -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Sunday, 1 April 2001 12:25:51 UTC