From: Jim Hendler (jhendler@darpa.mil)
Date: 02/01/01
folks- been following the conc. types argument but staying quiet (a rarity for me). I don't feel strongly on the issue, although I have a suspicion that I tend to side with Dan and Tim away from a strong separation. I do want to propose a way forward - based on my now infamous "no aesthetic arguments" edict -- what I really meant was that when we had issues that seemed to have multiple ways ahead, instead of arguing based on "what looked good" we would try to propose some use cases that required the new features (i.e. start with a relatively minimal language, add features only when people said "i need an X" and showed the current language really couldn't handle it, and not worry too much about things that could be mapped to one another by the computer) In this case, Dan has created an example in his mailing about using the XML schema types in RDF. When I tried back of the envelope to translate these into the Peter/Ian style (whcih I admit I did very quickly and ad hoc) I didn't see a lot of problems with doing so So I find myself asking for some specific examples of the DIFFERENCES between the two approaches in terms of something I can DO in one and not in the other (yes Peter, I know there are semantic and computational differences, but I'm a stupid DARPA guy and can't understand these deep issues - I need to see some practical examples) Can someone help me puzzle this out -- it seems these two aren't mappable (based on Peter's eloquent explanation of the three ways these can be split), but I also cannot seem to come up with a strong example of a use case for one that defeats the other... -JH Prof. James Hendler Program Manager DARPA/ISO 703-696-2238 (phone) 3701 N. Fairfax Dr. 703-696-2201 (Fax) Arlington, VA 22203 jhendler@darpa.mil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST