W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > January 2008

Re: ISSUE-2 (allDisjoint-RDF): No syntax for AllDisjoint in RDF mapping

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:22:41 +0000
Message-ID: <478C9781.2010607@hpl.hp.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: public-owl-wg@w3.org

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> 
> PS:  This is mostly, but not entirely, in jest.
> 

I think I get the joke ...

The "not entirely" reminds me of my very first area of research, which 
was a topic called Montague Grammars, which had a 'compositional 
semantics' - i.e. the meaning of the whole is a function of the meaning 
of the parts. At some level, a trivially true proposition - given a 
sufficiently rich view of 'function' and 'meaning' - but in making it so 
one misses the point.

So I read the "not entirely" is that it seems very plausible that given 
enough effort the requirement to have an RDF compatible semantics may 
well be trivial for the mapping into lists - but it would miss the point 
somewhat.

Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 11:23:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 15 January 2008 11:23:09 GMT