- From: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 09:29:53 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
[charles munat] > This discussion seems to be devolving into yet another impasse. I suggest > that we all back up a bit. [peter patel-schneider] I don't believe that this approach will solve the disagreement between those of us who what to know what various constructs that are already in RDF really mean that those of us who are using these constructs for various purposes. The basic complaint of the first group is that people in the second group are going beyond what RDF is capable of. People in the second group use the reification syntax, but have some extra meaning for it that is not shared by all interested in RDF. It is the contention of the first group that the use of these extra meanings make RDF no longer be a true representation language, and thus ill suited for representing information in the WWW. For the record, since Pat Hayes seems to playing Don Quixote all by himself in this discussion, let me say that I agree with about 95% of what he says, and Peter probably does too. The only reason we haven't jumped in earlier is that we have said it all before. I do think we owe the group a concrete proposal for fixing RDF/DAML. I made such a proposal (http://cs-www.cs.yale.edu/homes/dvm/daml/proposal.html), and am now rethinking it. The most urgent change is to get rid of the triples idea; then most of the pressure for reification will vanish. -- Drew McDermott
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2001 09:29:58 UTC