RE: What do the ontologists want

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

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.

Reply:

Yes, that is pretty clear from the discussion. Also clear is that it isn't
going anywhere anytime soon.

Is there a document somewhere that explains the limitations (clearly) of RDF
according to the first group? In other words, could I start using RDF, limit
myself to the sorts of uses that the first group approves of, and avoid
controversy while the second group makes its case?

I'm just trying to pull something out of this that I can use right now while
people who know a lot more than I do put together a "version 2" to solve
these other problems.

Any help appreciated...

Sincerely,
Charles F. Munat
Seattle, Washington

Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2001 11:00:19 UTC