danbri: Just mentioned on www-rdf-interest. Seems to be have a bunch of tutorials on RDF, SemWeb and XML stuff. Haven't investigate yet, but front page has 4 OWL things, and an RDF and (separately) Schema tutorial.
danbri: Ah, I remember why I didn't investigate this before. I have to agree to license terms before reading tutorial. Boo...
danbri: And then you get a .zip file...
danbri: Ah, I remember why I didn't investigate this before. I have to agree to license terms before reading tutorial. Boo...
danbri: And then you get a .zip file...
bijan: First off, that TimBL was to raise the issue with the TAG seems clearly evident in the record, as shown in the irc note.
bijan: Trying to reconstruct my understanding, I thought that the "if it's a TAG issue", or rather, what the TAG issue is, would be determined by the group set up by the coordination group.
bijan: An important point occurs to me: This would be less tricky if the SWCG had been able to move more quickly on this, while stuff was still fresh.
bijan: However, I also thought that the TAG issue would have been more narrow, i.e., URI denotation alone. (And, if I were the TAG, I'd punt on "denotation" :))
bijan: There are a LOT of issues related to the "social meaning" topic that seem properly to be addressed by working groups. For example, the assertional status of a bit of RDF (especially if we eventually allow explicit other "voicing" of RDF statements, e.g., contexts, or dark triples).
bijan: This is NOT going to be addressed by the current RDF Core working group (it may be strictly out of charter, in fact). But I don't see that it's out of scope of some RDF working group.
bijan: This directly affects the claim in Tim's original email "that use of a URI in RDF implies a commitment to its ontology". (This is putting aside the issue of determining what its ontology IS.)
bijan: (Indeed, there's at least one OWL issue outstanding on this general topic (daml:imports as magic syntax, and there was some LC comments in this space)
bijan: Note that there a variety of ways a future group could go on various subissues of this one, each with various technical tradeoffs. Most of which, afaict, perfectly consistent with TAG described Web architecture.
bijan: Though, in any case, I might have thought that the TAG ought to be a little reactive on this front. It seems uncomfortably close to language/technology design for the TAG to "find" on this without some specific proposals (or even plan for proposals) on the floor.