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

RE: suggested wording for removing weasels from MT

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 09:46:31 -0500
Message-Id: <p05101549b8edc6dd81d9@[]>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>I think this is a significant improvement.
>(I also hope that resolving DT vis-a-vis webont will clarify whether this
>text is a desireable hook or not; and if not I tend to agree with Dan about
>not putting it).

In the current draft Ive just taken it out altogether, as Dan wanted. 
Some such paragraph can be plonked back into the text later if we 
feel it is needed, but it won't affect anything else in the document.


>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  From: w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
>>  [mailto:w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Pat Hayes
>>  Sent: 22 April 2002 22:59
>>  To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>>  Subject: suggested wording for removing weasels from MT
>>  While re-doing the MT it occurred to me that several scattered
>>  remarks in various places might usefully be put in one place, and the
>>  result would have the desirable side-effect of removing the
>>  'weasel-wording' stuff about unasserted triples (and all reference to
>>  unasserted triples from the formal MT tables, appendices, etc.). The
>>  resulting paragraph would read approximately as follows.  Comments
>>  solicited, particularly from anyone who has any strong objections to
>>  the document saying something like this:
>>  -----
>>  "The model theory assumes that the assertion made by an RDF graph
>>  consists of the claim that the triples in the graph are true. In
>>  practice, this assumption may need be modified somewhat. For example,
>>  the use of a uriref in an RDF graph may be taken as assuming that
>>  some other RDF  document which is assumed to be the 'definition' of
>>  the meaning of that term is also assented to by the first graph. In
>>  this case, the MT should be understood as applying to all the triples
>>  in both graphs, ie to the merge of the graph with the defining graph
>>  (or graphs).  Other applications may wish to consider some of the
>>  triples in a graph, eg those associated with a certain reserved
>>  namespace, as not being asserted (a status sometimes called a 'dark'
>>  triple), in which case the MT should be understood as defining the
>>  intended meaning only of the triples which are intended to be
>>  asserted.  In other words, the MT should be applied as a meaning
>>  specification to the triples that are considered to be asserted by
>>  the graph. In the absence of some external criterion for adding or
>>  removing triples from consideration, the basic RDF assumption is that
>>  publishing an RDF document amounts to asserting precisely the triples
>>  that occur in the graph defined by the document."
>>  -----
>>  This would be the only mention of 'unasserted' triples in the
>>  document, and the whole issue of what counts as an unasserted or dark
>>  triple would be relegated to some other domain of consideration,
>>  which might be called the operational deployment of RDF in some
>>  larger context. Anyway it would not be in the MT itself.
>>  OK ??
>>  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

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 10:46:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:57 UTC