- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 14:52:04 +0100 (BST)
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Sun, 16 Jun 2002, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > I do not yet know whether the proposal is a compromise or not, and if it is, > what what are the opposing positions that were involved in the compromise. > > peter > > PS: Yes, I do think that labelling the proposal as a compromise is > premature, and may cause problems. > > The "?" in the title was meant to carry some of that doubt ... I perhaps should have emphasised that. The question mark was also intended to convey a question of is this a compromise? could everyone live with something like this? does this enable us to avoid a further layering discussion now about axiomatic semantics? (with Pat and Guha - see recent RDF Core traffic). I think I see it as a compromise rather than a solution in the sense that it articulates the agreement rather than the disagreement between the various parties. Whereas most of the other proposals seem intent on providing the 'right' answer. Particularly in the light of the RDF Core discussion on axiomatic approaches that are intended to embrace all SW languages I think the discomfort with the current dark triples position still needs addressing. === I perhaps incorrectly had been reading Peter's XML presentation syntax stuff [1] as a suggestion of, if we could keep to within this bit of RDF/XML, then everything would be easier. I was trying to phrase the suggested position as one which fitted with that as an approach. Jeremy [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0233.html
Received on Sunday, 16 June 2002 09:52:25 UTC