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

Re: Self-descriptive assertions

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:04:34 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org

At 11:37 23/03/04 -0500, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>I understand now. Ok, it was responsive. What you didn't realize is that 
>this group has been moribund for a while. Perhaps this will revive things.

I hope so.  I think Mark's intervention is being driven by some real-world 
goals for his software, to which I think it's reasonable for this task 
force to be responsive.

>>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.
>No need for buy-in from the "task force" because the task force never had 
>any even-inside-W3C authority. However, it's prolly the case that if you 
>get me agreeing (being a main naysayer) you'll get some traction *somewhere* :)

Strictly true, but I think that's maybe a little misleading.  By my 
understanding, the task force was set up (in part) to see if we could come 
to some kind of consensus on the issue of RDF-as-assertion as opposed to 
RDF-as-another-bag-of-bits.  The consensus process of standards making is 
far less about authority than it is about strong, coherent ideas -- if we 
(as a group) can come up with good ideas, then I'd say there's every chance 
that the W3C and RDF community would consider Recommending those ideas.

Can we start to "clear the room" here:  are there any situations that we 
might be able to say that some RDF clearly is asserted by someone?  And 
other situations in which it is clearly not asserted?

By "clearly is asserted" here, I mean in the sense that some software could 
be written to determine that assertions are to be used in the production of 
some results.


Graham Klyne
For email:
Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2004 12:08:38 UTC

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