Re: Proposed Consensus Review of RDF Core Documents

>>-------------------------------------------
>>Consensus comments on the RDF Semantics document
>>--------------------------------------------
>>We believe that the design of the semantics, as reflected in the LC 
>>documents, is such that OWL will be able to layer appropriately. 
>>
> 
> The basic design of the semantics may be suitable, but there are many
> problems in the details that affect OWL.  It might be able to layer OWL 
on
> the semantics as described in the RDF Semantics last call working draft,
> but it would require considerable work on our part to get around the 
errors
> in that document.

I believe that the next sentence by Jim is sufficiently strong 
("need to be adressed") to prevent the situation that WebOnt would need 
to get around these errors.

> 
> 
>>However, we have a number of concerns that need to be addressed to 
>>improve the document (and, in particular, to fix some inconsistencies 
>>in the current document).
>>
>>Herman ter Horst of our group has prepared a detailed review of this 
>>document itemizing inconsistencies he has found.  The Web Ontology WG 
>>endorses the spirit of his review, and has asked Herman to help 
>>insure that the final RDF Semantics document is edited to fix the 
>>inconsistencies and editorial issues that he identifies.
>>
> 
> You should mention here the many errors that I have found in this 
document,
> most of which have been verified by Pat. 

I agree that many of these errors have been verified by Pat, and should be
corrected in the RDF Semantics document.

> We might want to discuss my
> current view of the way forward with respect to the RDF Semantics 
document
> at the teleconference today.
> 
> peter
> 
> 

Herman

Received on Thursday, 20 February 2003 09:32:14 UTC