RE: Dark triples motivation

• From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
• Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 13:14:34 +0100
• To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
• Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDMEKJCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

DanC:
> > I think I explained this in a telcon, but I don't think
> > it got recorded very well, so I'll reiterate:
> >
> > The best way for group X to make a request to group Y
> > is for X to state its requirements *and* propose a solution,
> > as an existence proof that the requirements can be met.
>


I guess I have this problem to.
I can see that WOWG has stated a requirement for unasserted triples, and
that a range of solutions has been proposed.

However, the real problem is something else.

It is this semantic layering problem, and dark triples is the solution.

I am beginning to understand the problem. I have yet to understand the
solution.

In terms of WOWG and RDFCore the problem is:
 "It is difficult to layer a language on top of RDF because the syntactic
and semantic layering get confused"

or something like that; with DAML+OIL as an example.


Jeremy

Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2002 08:15:35 UTC