dajobe: 45k of info that IMHO should be insome spec. Am I beating this idea too hard?
bijan: Yes!
bijan: Though my answer was made semi-randomly.
dajobe: lots of impl info of course; but search for "we do not" and "not necessarily unique" etc for problems
bijan: So I add...no!
DanC: it is in some spec, no? this very one.
bijan: The guy who implemetned our checker has an experience report on this stuff that I must beat upon him to publish.
bijan: Yes!
bijan: Though my answer was made semi-randomly.
dajobe: lots of impl info of course; but search for "we do not" and "not necessarily unique" etc for problems
bijan: So I add...no!
DanC: it is in some spec, no? this very one.
bijan: The guy who implemetned our checker has an experience report on this stuff that I must beat upon him to publish.
bijan: By yours truely.
bijan: I love this argument, by the way. It's really beautiful!
bijan: If you're confused on what the SOC view is, see my exhaustive (exhausting?) description .
sandro: Its very nice, but I'd simply use it to argue that DL is misdefined and/or the document at 07/owl should be fixed.
bijan: Then join me in marveling at its neatness.
bijan: That's one of the cool points about it!
timbl: Though the "strong ontological commitment" Bijan is arguing against is not one i at least am claiming.
bijan: Er.. there's only me who has use the phrase strong ontological commitment.
bijan: I have to say that I think this argument is worth study. I think it reveals some stuff about how specs, and schemas at uris, etc. might interact under different assumptions, if you think about it.
bijan: Ah, I think Tim was using SOC in scare quotes. Yes, I currently believe that tim doesn't believe in SOC. I still believe that his TAG issue formulation expresses SOC (or its very hard not to read it that way).
bijan: And, at the WWW2003 social meaning BOF in Hungary, I was under the very strong impression (and I'm told I'm not the only one) that Tim claimed precisely that. Indeed, I seem to recall pressing him on this point and getting an affirmative.
bijan: This is one reason I'm a little sticky on this point. It would make me happy if we could, in fact, declare consensus against this view, publish that consensus with an agreed on explication of that view, and move on.
bijan: We have not done that. And it's not always clear to me that other things said don't entail SOC, or something very close to it.
bijan: I love this argument, by the way. It's really beautiful!
bijan: If you're confused on what the SOC view is, see my exhaustive (exhausting?) description .
sandro: Its very nice, but I'd simply use it to argue that DL is misdefined and/or the document at 07/owl should be fixed.
bijan: Then join me in marveling at its neatness.
bijan: That's one of the cool points about it!
timbl: Though the "strong ontological commitment" Bijan is arguing against is not one i at least am claiming.
bijan: Er.. there's only me who has use the phrase strong ontological commitment.
bijan: I have to say that I think this argument is worth study. I think it reveals some stuff about how specs, and schemas at uris, etc. might interact under different assumptions, if you think about it.
bijan: Ah, I think Tim was using SOC in scare quotes. Yes, I currently believe that tim doesn't believe in SOC. I still believe that his TAG issue formulation expresses SOC (or its very hard not to read it that way).
bijan: And, at the WWW2003 social meaning BOF in Hungary, I was under the very strong impression (and I'm told I'm not the only one) that Tim claimed precisely that. Indeed, I seem to recall pressing him on this point and getting an affirmative.
bijan: This is one reason I'm a little sticky on this point. It would make me happy if we could, in fact, declare consensus against this view, publish that consensus with an agreed on explication of that view, and move on.
bijan: We have not done that. And it's not always clear to me that other things said don't entail SOC, or something very close to it.
DanC: solved a namespace mixing problem
DanC: it doesn't solve the problem of mixing HTML and MathML and SVG. But it solves the problem of mixing dublin core, prism, and other vocabularies that respect the RDF constraints.
DanC: cf How-to: mixing vocabularies slide from WWW2003 semantic web tutorial
DanC: it doesn't solve the problem of mixing HTML and MathML and SVG. But it solves the problem of mixing dublin core, prism, and other vocabularies that respect the RDF constraints.
DanC: cf How-to: mixing vocabularies slide from WWW2003 semantic web tutorial
zoyd: sweet!
bijan: I'm really jonesing to try out the enterprise edition, mostly for the sake of the KnowlegeWorks package.
bijan: Interesting GUI deveopment stuff, too. X11 or native mac, and portable, i think, to windows.
bijan: Eh, I guess that's old hat these days, but I don't think they use emulated widgets.