- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:07:11 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
At 04:47 PM 4/9/01 -0400, Dan Brickley wrote: > > ... There are many > > useful representation systems that are on shakey ground. However, such > > systems run into problems when they are used as components of other > > systems, or are used by people (or systems) beyond the initial core group, > > or are used in ways that were not envisioned or completely thought through > > by the initial core group. If you think that a web representation system > > that is supposed to form the basis of all semantic web work doesn't fit > > into any of these categories then you don't need a firmly-grounded system. > > If, on the other hand, [you can fill in this part] .... > > > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider > >I absolutely agree. We created www-rdf-logic as a forum for those who >_do_ see the need to use logic when designing representation systems for >the Web. This list should not be a place where logicians have to justify >their work, or its relevance to W3C's Semantic Web effort. Quite how we go >about >organising an "after the party" cleanup of the Web (eg. URIs, the murkier >corners of the RDF specs...) is another matter. I expect to see, for >example, the new RDFCore WG[1] take on board some of the clarifications to >RDF (eg. RDFS semantics) proposed by DAML. But I have no instinct as to >how far (or how fast) we can go in formalising some of the other key >components of the Web (eg. the naming model implicit in >http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt). I, too, agree. I think that, given the issues raised, the RDFcore WG needs to carry with it a clear understanding of these issues. I'm trying... #g ------------ Graham Klyne GK@NineByNine.org
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2001 10:48:20 UTC