RE: AS&S and WG consensus (was Re: abstract syntax and RDFS)

> Yes, well, to speak plainly, I expect that if you we forbidden to use the
> terms "rdfs:seeAlso" and "rdfs:isDefinedBy" under penalty of
> death, that you
> would be able to design a long and productive life for yourself. Let's not
> use the term "can't live with" too lightly, eh?


you are right of course - (well, God willing).

but I really do think I would vote against further progress of OWL along the
recommendation track in some instances ... and the RDFS => OWL Lite
migration is one of those showstopping issues for me (of course that might
be an incorrect judgement, I am influenced by having worked on RDF
developers kits and RDF standards; and HP has a greater RDF investment than
say Description Logic investment).


Received on Friday, 24 January 2003 05:38:14 UTC