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

Re: Self-descriptive assertions

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 01:20:19 -0500
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040324062019.GF11976@markbaker.ca>

I think this question below describes the essence of the disconnect, so
I'll focus on it.

On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 11:13:10AM -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
> >   AFAICT,
> > currently, those two states are indistinguishable from a messaging POV
> > (i.e. communicating both via HTTP GET & RDF uses the same message).
> >
> > If there's another way I should be handling stuff like that, I'm all
> > ears.  I don't see that dc:creator is anything special, nor do I feel
> > that any type of predicate should be special, because it itself may
> > turn out to be a non-asserted predicate.
> 
> Such is life. Why do you want to constrain RDF to be more
> self-descriptive than any other representation of information?

I don't, I just want it to be as self-descriptive as other machine
targetted formats.

Consider an iCalendar document returned via GET and labelled as
text/calendar.  I consider that an asserted document because that seems
the intent of RFC 2445, and even how people are using it.  That's why
I'd expect the equivalent RDF/iCal document, published as
application/rdf+xml, to also be asserted.  If we are to open up the door
to "unasserted RDF" then we're going to have to consider how we'd
publish an unasserted RDF/iCal document, how that would be different
semantically to a text/calendar document, and how that difference would
reveal itself in the messages.

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2004 01:18:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:16 GMT