- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:54:43 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org> > Subject: Moving forward > Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:30:11 -0500 > > > It is really hard for me to believe that these semantic/layering problems > > are not solvable. > > I think that there are several examples that show that they are solvable. > > It is just that something has to be given up. There are several of these > somethings, and there are different opinions on which one should go. > Suppose we wish to do minimal damage to DAML+OIL, e.g. use RDF but given the fact that RDF is currently being revised by RDFCore, and given the assumption that OWL will be a good customer of RDF, we have some ability to request clarifications/perhaps changes. What needs to be given up under these circumstances? Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2002 17:57:34 UTC