W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

RE: "asserted triple" weasle-words must go [was: best way to write triples?]

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:14:56 +0100
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDCELGCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>
> Ah... then about this bit:
>
> -------
> The use of the phrase "asserted triple" in the third condition is a
> deliberate weasel-worded artifact, intended to allow an RDF graph or
> document to contain triples which are being used for some
> non-assertional purpose.
> -------
>   -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-mt-20020214/
>
> I suggest it's time to get rid of the weasle-words.
>
> The most straightforward thing to do is to strike that text.
> That's my preference.


I second that proposal.

Dark triples have now wasted a hold load of time and money.

They have a cool name; and may strike Pat and Peter as a cool idea.

But they are not in RDF M&S; they are not necessary; they do not clarify
M&S; they are not in charter.

Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 06:17:09 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:31 EDT