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: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 19:33:10 -0500
Message-Id: <p05101539b8e5147e3ae1@[65.217.30.94]>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On Wed, 2002-04-17 at 18:04, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
>>  I ask now because I would like to get it right in what might be the
>>  final version of the MT document.
>
>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.

OK, Im getting tired of this debate and also beginning to think that 
might be the easiest way to go. That will help to drive another nail 
into RDF's coffin, which might in the long run be the best thing for 
the world in general in any case. And it might an interesting 
experiment for one WG to simply tell another WG to shove its request 
up its ass. That might at least produce some interesting stuff in the 
coordination group email archive.

>
>Otherwise, let's see some test cases for what it means.

Well, if you insist, but the MT makes the pretty clear, doesn't it? 
Dark triples mean exactly nothing in the MT. They have no RDF 
entailments. I could make up a test case if you really want one, but 
it wouldnt be very interesting.

>
>One option is to resurrect the magic-namespace from M&S 1.0.
>
>----
>When an RDF processor encounters an XML element or attribute name that
>is declared to be from a namespace whose name begins with the string
>"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax" and the processor does not
>recognize the semantics of that name then the processor is required to
>skip (i.e., generate no tuples for) the entire XML element

No, that would not work. The whole point is to have triples but not 
have them asserted. The point is not to make them vanish, just to 
have no *semantic* import.

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 20:33:20 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:33 EDT