- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:22:41 +0000
- 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 UTC