- From: Massimo Marchiori <massimo@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 02:35:51 +0200
- To: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> There have been numerous conversations between WG members in Sardiia this week. > Some have been about layering. > My take is that we have been arriving at a potential compromise. > > The goal of the compromise is to postpone the layering issues > rather than tosolve them. > i.e. we find a solution that is good enough for OWL 1.0; which satisfies > nobody, but doesn't go over anyone's threshold. > > In essence the compromise would be to make OWL a weak semantic > extension of a subset of RDF. <snip/> I missed the aforementioned conversation, alas, but notice that we just need to read better the wowg's archives: the different-domain proposal has been my point since the very beginning (cf. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0037.html , also reported at a teleconf...). MikeS independenly also somehow supported this line of thought (look in the archive for his note on mapping different domains). Incidentally, the different-domain approach has been the one I've been using since 1998 in various forms to do all sorts of extensions to RDF (mainly RDF-logics), happily avoiding all the "same-domain, hence layering is impossible" line of thought. Even more, for me the "same-domain" had *NEVER BEEN AN OPTION* (i.e., not even *thought* about imposing a same-domain layering chain), and took me a while to digest what Peter & Pat actually meant by their "layering is impossible" argument (again, cf the above email...). Conclusion: reading well other people's emails can save lot of time (and energy...). -M
Received on Sunday, 16 June 2002 20:36:21 UTC