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

Re: Self-descriptive assertions

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 01:34:02 -0500
Message-Id: <3D4B7C3B-7D5D-11D8-AEC8-0003939E0B44@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-sw-meaning@w3.org
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>

On Mar 24, 2004, at 1:20 AM, Mark Baker wrote:

>
> 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,

Could you point to which section expresses that seeming? I'm not 
finding it.

Does this mean that one shouldn't publish sample calenders using 
text/calendar? (Or proposed, say, conference schedules?)

Perhaps these are outliers, but it might make a big difference.

> 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,

Well, if I were writing a tutorial on iCal, I'd prolly publish the 
examples on the web with type text/calendar.

Have I violated RDF 2445? Could you point to the language that shows 
this?

(I'm being perfectly serious about this. Just because people *normally* 
mean to assert, e.g., their calendar by putting it on the web, and 
other people normally (and correctly) take them as asserting it, 
doesn't mean that the format mandated that assertion. And might not do 
so for very good reasons!)

> how that would be different
> semantically to a text/calendar document, and how that difference would
> reveal itself in the messages.

I don't believe it does. I think it's application specific.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2004 01:43:34 GMT

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