- From: Danny Ayers <danny@panlanka.net>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:04:50 +0600
- To: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
- Cc: "Www-Rdf-Logic" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
<- > Is RDF hobbled without the logic that some people are saying <- it needs? Ok, <- > several people have used formal terms to describe these <- shortcomings (that I <- > have serious trouble following, BTW). If the thing(s) that are <- lacking can <- > be specified in this way, surely it wouldn't be too much more <- trouble to <- > suggest some workarounds and/or alternatives. <- <- Danny, as I've pointed out before, this is not an issue. RDF already has <- reification built in which makes this not a problem. The problem is that <- people don't like reification. Personally I can't see the problem - I can imagine RDF being suitable for pretty much anything in this realm we can throw at it. But I'm not an expert on logic, and several people who appear to know what they are talking about differ in quite strong terms. There is certainly a point that RDF might get used for purposes for which it wasn't originally intended (a by-product of innovation) where weaknesses that we can get around with current applications may become Achilles heels. The viewpoint of the logicians may be skewed, perhaps they are simply looking for something that isn't essential, but generally speaking ignoring the advice of experts isn't good practice, and in any system it's easier to fix problems early on. That there actually is an rdf-logic list is a good sign that potential problems of this nature will be nipped in the bud. The prospect of the potential embarrassment on getting the fundamentals for the Semantic Web wrong should also help concentrate a few minds ;-)
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2001 02:10:35 UTC