WOWG: Chairs reminder -- was Re: issue 5.10: a position statement

At 1:39 PM -0500 7/18/02, Dan Connolly wrote:
>OWL is only interesting inasmuch as, when making new RDF vocabularies
>(or refining descriptions of old ones),
>widespread deployment of OWL allows me to use owl terms to constrain
>the meanings of the terms in my RDF vocabulary in such a way that
>lots of other folks will understand those constraints.

At 7:16 AM -0400 7/19/02, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>In response to Dan's statement on his view of OWL, here is my view on RDF.

Chair-neutrality very much ON

Gentlemen - may I remind you both that the working group spent a 
great deal of time discussing this issue early in its existence, it 
reached a number of resolutions at the Amsterdam face to face on this 
issue, and has been proceeding quite well based on those resolutions. 
Whether you think we are too vested in RDF, or not enough vested, is 
immaterial -- we reached our decisions and should live with them.

I see no reason to revisit or reopen any of those resolutions at this 
time, and urge you to have this important discussion on rdf-logic or 
other venue, but please not where it takes time from the complex work 
ahead still facing our WG.

thanks much
  Jim H.

Professor James Hendler
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)

Received on Friday, 19 July 2002 09:10:47 UTC