W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sw-meaning@w3.org > March 2004

Re: Self-descriptive assertions

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:23:47 -0500
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040323162347.GC11976@markbaker.ca>

On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 12:20:59AM -0500, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> RDF, as currently specified, says nothing about when a graph is 
> asserted

Right.  I believe that's the problem.

> (by whom).

??  I'm only interested, right now, in knowing whether the *publisher*
of that information asserts it.

> There was some text in Concepts and Abstract Syntax 
> that attempted to say something (very weak) about that. It was struck 
> (and for, IMHO, good reason). Sneaking in something about it in the 
> media type thing seems very bad to me.

Well, there used to be something in the media type draft about it too,
but it was also removed.

> (And will this affect, oh, DAWG? I.e., if I want to use an 
> application/rdf+xml as a query "by example", I won't be able to because 
> it's asserted? I.e., my query wants to be *is* this bit of RDF/XML 
> asserted by you.)

I can't make sense of that, but it looks interesting 8-)  Can you
elaborate please?

> >>Er... you somehow want to get a widespread understanding that
> >>some RDF is asserted, but you want to short-circuit the process
> >>of getting widespread agreement. I don't see how to do that.
> >
> >I only want to short-cut the mechanism, not the process, by declaring
> >that all application/rdf+xml-described documents are asserting their
> >graphs.  That leaves the door open for other media types to be used to
> >do things differently in the future.
> Oh c'mon :) Or, let me rephrase: Your response seems extremely 
> non-responsive to Dan's point.

Not at all; you've just got to read into it a bit deeper. 8-)

I understand that the WG had decided to punt this issue to the task
force, and that's fine.  AFAICT though, the task force hasn't rendered
it's decision.  So, by coming here I don't consider myself short-cutting
the process, because this seems to *be* the process.

While I'm focused on presenting what I believe to be a decent solution
to this problem, I'm fully aware that I have to get buy-in from the
task force.  Again, no short-cutting.

> Plus, this totally kills aggregation and lots of other useful uses of 
> application/rdf+xml documents.

That seems to be begging the question.  I respectfully suggest that
your concern would be best directed at "other useful uses of RDF/XML
documents", which I agree with.  But I don't see how my suggestion
interferes with that in general, nor specifically for aggregation.

Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2004 11:16:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:01 UTC