Re: What do the ontologists want?

As one of the ontologists, I have quite a number of concerns with RDF,
which I have mentioned several times.  I think, however, that Jonathan
Borden did a great summary of what I want, namely:

	[...] strip out all the stuff from RDF that no one agrees on (such
	as reification). Start with a simple but rock solid foundation, and  
	add concepts in only as absolutely necessary.

I would also add that I want a firm meaning for everything in RDF, and that
includes things like bags and alternatives, if they stay in.  (I am of the
strong belief that bags and alternative do not have any reasonable meaning
provided by RDF.) 

Peter Patel-Schneider 


From: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
Subject: What do the ontologists want?
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 22:59:56 +0100

> 
> Pat,
> 
> Since http://www.daml.org/listarchive/joint-committee/ is public
> and since I'm reading them from time to time, I came across
> http://www.daml.org/listarchive/joint-committee/0387.html
> In there, I found (among other comments)
> 
>    [[[
>    It might be salutary and useful if the RDFCore were to spend some
>    time listening to what the ontologists want, instead of telling them
>    what they can have.
>    ]]]
> 
> Since I am a member of the RDFCore WG I'm more than glad to listen
> to the ontologists. So what do the ontologists want?
> 
> --
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
>

Received on Monday, 14 May 2001 10:44:38 UTC