- 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>
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