- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 01:56:56 -0500
- To: "Ziv Hellman" <ziv@unicorn.com>
- Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> > >>From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl> >>Subject: Re: DOCUMENT: Layering document review (was Re: >>UPDATE: status of longer version of layering document) >>Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:12:35 +0100 >> >>[...] >> >>> option 1 is very nice but could only be chosen if at least >>one of the following fixes was made to RDF(S): >>> 1a move rdf:type to the meta-theory >>> 1b stratify RDFS >>> 1c allow for un-asserted triples in RDF >>> (and perhaps 1a and 1b are the same if someone could explain >>it to me) >>> >>> Looks like the next steps would be to get a sounding from >>RDF Core on 1a-c. >>> If these are all out, we now where we stand. >>> If at least one of these could be in, we have to choose >>between 1 and 3. >>> >>> Frank. > >We keep mentioning soliciting opinions from the RDF Core group. But has >anyone yet taken the step of actually knocking on the metaphorical door >of the RDF Core working group conference room and begun any dialogue >with them on the contentious subject matter? If yes, what has been the >initial response? If not, who volunteers to do this? I do, being in both groups. HOwever I don't expect that the Core WG will want to consider any large changes to RDF right now, as it is late and badly wants to get to a conclusion and wrap-up, and has far too much on its plate already. So I expect the best we can hope for is a recommendation that RDF be 'fixed' by the next WG in version 2. Bu that might well be good enough for Webont to move forward, I think. Pat Hayes -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Friday, 15 February 2002 01:56:55 UTC