W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Re: UPDATE: longer version of layering document

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 08 Feb 2002 16:24:08 -0600
To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: WebOnt WG <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1013207049.1760.60.camel@dirk>
On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 10:27, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> Hi:
> Dieter and I have put together the promised longer version of the layering
> document.  It is available at
> http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/semantic-web/layering.html

"Given that the most attractive layering solution is not possible ..."

Hmm... at the ftf you didn't conclude that it wasn't possible;
only that it wasn't straightforward. I don't see anything
in this paper that wasn't discussed at the meeting, so
I don't see how you come to the stronger conclusion.

Why doesn't section 5 discuss the possibilities for resolving
the paradox? An axiom of foundations, intuitionistic logic,
etc. The 4 possibilities discussed at the ftf
meeting seem to have dwindled to 3.

some nits:

  "Classes in RDF Schema are those resources that have members,"

not every RDFS class has a member; e.g. daml:Nothing.

  "Recently, a semantics for RDF(S) has been defined by Hayes"

It's been defined by the RDF Core WG; Hayes serves as editor.

TimBL's role is also overstated (The Semantic Web is
a W3C Activity, not just an idea of his); more on
that when/if we get closer to making this a NOTE.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 8 February 2002 17:23:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:27 UTC