- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 14:04:02 +0100
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
At 05:11 PM 5/23/02 -0500, pat hayes wrote: >This isn't saying we should abandon RDF, only that we have to be able to >use some other kinds of brick to do some of the other things. We seem to keep on bumping up against this in various guises, and I'm not sure why it seems to such an intractable problem for this community. Pragmatically, it seems that any number of programmers have been able to build things using RDF in ways that respect the simple assertional nature of RDF for the most part, but also add features as needed for the purpose at hand. Rigorous logic seems to be saying that there is something wrong about this, but these implemented systems work (pretty much) as their programmer-designers intended. Who's right here? It's hard to understand why, with so many top-class minds working at and around this problem, there's no clearer general insight into this dichotomy (formalism vs implementation) than there was (say) 18 months ago. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Friday, 24 May 2002 09:15:04 UTC