- From: Vassilis Christophides <christop@ics.forth.gr>
- Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:11:08 +0200 (EET)
- To: danbri@w3.org
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Dan I have argue several times about the RDF Schema issues presented in summary in my mail. No I am not satisfied by Pat Hayes answer. My problem is that I don't have enough time to debate with excaustive details. The axis of critic are: 1) Some of the RDF/S features are not justified by real application needs (at least the 2-3 applications I am dealing with) 2) They imply serious implementation limitations For example, class cycles is a very confusing notion in P2P e-learning applications, developers can't skip off this costly reasoning since it is embedded in the default RDF/S Semantics and there no efficient algorithms to implement transitive closure computations. More than an official response, I need a fruitful scientific discussion on these issues. We at least trying to explain our objections in all our papers (http://139.91.183.30:9090/RDF/publications/FuncBook.pdf http://139.91.183.30:9090/RDF/publications/comp-networks2003.pdf) Best Vassilis
Received on Friday, 21 March 2003 09:13:29 UTC