- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 21:49:38 -0500
- To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: heflin@cse.lehigh.edu, www-webont-wg@w3.org
> > >I asked some time ago what are the great advantages of RDFS that >justify us paying such a high price - I am still waiting for a >convincing answer (and considering the price, the answer needs to be >pretty convincing). > >Ian Ian - without going so far as a scope ruling, I feel obligated to point out that you have this exactly backwards. Our charter says we will use the DAML+OIL solution (a/k/a RDFS) unless we can come up with a convincing answer as to why we cannot! In short, the price of going to non-RDF solutions is that it will lose us support within the semantic web activity, will cause us to have to do a huge amount of work to change our chartering and activity description, and will require an absolute consensus from the WG that this is a BETTER solution (again, I quote our charter which everyone in this WG signed on to). So the question I ask is for someone to show me compelling and convincing reasons that we should not use RDF/RDFS. -JH <:personal-Opinion> p.s. Taking my chair hat off for a minute, I must admit that I agree with Dan Connolly, if the WG decides to move away from RDF(S) that is its choice, but I'll have a lot of trouble putting as much of my time and effort into a solution that, frankly, I think the XML world will ignore and the RDF world will reject, leaving us with no constituency at all -- and the ironic thing is DAML+OIL will end up being the competitor we lose to... </:personalOpinion> -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) AV Williams Building, Univ of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Saturday, 6 April 2002 08:22:15 UTC