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 11:04:45 -0500
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040324160445.GG11976@markbaker.ca>

On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 01:34:02AM -0500, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> 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?

(watch those acronyms! 8-)

No, you haven't violated it.

> 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.

You have a point.

I'm wondering if I had the wrong idea about what folks meant by
"assert".  I was assuming that in order to have the equivalent of a
text/calendar document, you'd need the graph plus a statement that the
graph was asserted.  But what I hear you and Dan saying is that the
equivalent is just the graph, and that assertion is something richer.  I
can buy that, and it makes me happy because it means that all
application/rdf+xml documents are mark:asserted.

This would mean that reification, parseType="literal", and using
text/plain or application/xml, are all mechanisms that avoid making
mark:assertions simply by not yielding triples from some RDF/XML.
Right?

So, is what is meant here by "unassert" intended to obliterate a
mark:asserted triple so that the result is, in effect, that the triple
was never extracted?  If so, I might have some more self-description
issues. 8-)

BTW, does it seem that mark:assertion is roughly equivalent to what some
would call a "speech act" (assuming there's a consistent definition for
it)?

P.S. no apology required regarding the earlier message.  I apparently
took it in the intended manner.

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2004 13:10:25 GMT

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