- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 14:32:39 -0400 (EDT)
- To: patrick hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
On Tue, 28 May 2002, patrick hayes wrote: > (Sorry it has taken so long to reply to this.) > > > > Sandro Hawke writes: > >> > > [Pat Hayes] > >> > > None of this [stuff about programming] has anything to do with what > >> > > the RDF/DAML/OWL development effort is about, seems to me. > >> > > >> > That statement is both outrageous and totally understandable. We're > >> > arguing with some pretty ambiguous terms here. I'll try to be more > >> > precise; stop me when go wrong. (like I have to say that....) > > > >Perhaps I should have said: Pat, you're right that the DAML/OWL effort > >is not about programming; that's why I put them at Layer 3 [1]. RDF, > >however, is going to be very useful for the programming side of > >things. > > That remark suggests a distinction between RDF and DAML/OWL which is > completely different from the distinction assumed by the people in > the working groups concerned. I agree. You seem to see RDF as an > implementation language (?), whereas the prevailing assumption is > that RDF is a simple logical language which is extended by DAML and > OWL. I have to say I find your notion hard to take seriously. If I > were looking for a programming language for just about any task, I > would be hard pressed to come up with any reason to use RDF. I'd > rather program in assembler than in RDF. Or XSLT? > Well, of COURSE programming is important. The fact that you feel that > this needs saying suggests that we may not be communicating very > effectively. (Also, I do not know what you mean by the "programming > side of things". As opposed to what, exactly?) I heard a rumour you didn't like Apple pie, either. Dan
Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2002 14:32:42 UTC