- From: Danny Ayers <danny@panlanka.net>
- Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 20:04:55 +0600
- To: "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
<- Well, we certainly need some framework, to be sure.
This is surely the point - and we have one, however imperfect, in the form
of RDF. I'm assuming that the good folks that dreamt up RDF didn't do so on
the basis of coin tosses ('heads - pointy brackets, tails - superfluous
parentheses'), so there is something of value in there. The alternatives
then are 1. to kill RDF and/or 2. create an altogether new framework and/or
3. extend RDF to make it do what we want.
1. ain't gonna happen as people are already working with it - it may
eventually go with a whimper, but not yet a while
2. starting from scratch is hard work - some of it will undoubtedly
duplicate what has already been done, and even a hint of agreement on
standards takes an age (what is it in Internet time, I wonder...)
3. would seem to be the least bad/most likely option - add functionality in
the form of external schemas, if need be gaffer (duct) tape in
characteristics from different domains (calculi/algebras whatever - any
volunteers for the Chinese Room?)
There is at least one further alternative - devote (mythical?) man-months to
moaning about the faults of RDF...
Received on Saturday, 7 April 2001 10:08:38 UTC