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

From: Jim Hendler <>
Subject: WOWG: Chairs reminder -- was Re: issue 5.10: a position statement
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 09:10:37 -0400

> 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.

I agree that revisiting resolutions is problematic in general.  However, I
am having a hard time seeing how the resolutions reached in Amsterdam
relate to issue 5.10.  I feel that no significant progress will be made on
issue 5.10 without some background discussion like Dan and I just had.  

> thanks much
>   Jim H.


Received on Friday, 19 July 2002 09:32:29 UTC