- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 23:14:07 +0100
- To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: pfps@research.bell-labs.com, heflin@cse.lehigh.edu, www-webont-wg@w3.org
> > [...] > > > > > I asked some time ago what are the great advantages of RDFS that > > > justify us paying such a high price - I am still waiting for a > > > convincing answer (and considering the price, the answer needs to be > > > pretty convincing). > > > > there is *no* high price involved with http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ > > it's as cheap a CMOS gate technology > > What about the layering/semantics problem, the verbosity and the > difficulty of defining clear and unambiguous syntax? based on my experience with the http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfs-rules.n3 (in concert with http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/) and the (as yet evolving) http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules.n3 I havn't found any layering/semantics problem I completely miss the point why http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ sh/couldn't evolve I also think that http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/ is a clear and unambiguous syntax and reasonable w.r.t. verbosity and the "list" issue is in progess -- Jos De Roo
Received on Saturday, 6 April 2002 17:14:53 UTC