Re: Moving forward

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> From: "Jonathan Borden" <>
> Subject: Moving forward
> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:30:11 -0500
> > It is really hard for me to believe that these semantic/layering
> > 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?


Received on Thursday, 14 March 2002 17:57:34 UTC