Re: "RDF processor"? "understand"??? [was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-08-25]

On 23 Aug 2002, Dan Connolly wrote:

>
> On Thu, 2002-08-22 at 10:41, bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > 13: Meaning of rdf:type and relationship between RDF and RDFS
> > (a) must any RDF processor
>
> what's an 'RDF processor'?

Anything that deals with RDF?

> We're defining a language, not a software module, right?
>
> The first occurence of the term in
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/
> is in the discussion of issues. It's not used anywhere
> in the spec. (Whew!)
>
> It doesn't occur at all in
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/
>
> (whew!)
>
> > understand
>
> What does 'understand' mean?

After 2 years on a WG, I'm no longer sure :-)

I agree in principle that informal language and anthropomorphisation of
the global pulsating hyperbrain or any part thereof should be avoided in
specs.

> > the object of an rdf:type property as being an rdfs:Class (and hence
> > understand what an rdfs:Class is)?
> >
> > (b) must an RDF processor that understands what an rdfs:Class is also
> > understand the rest of the RDFS vocabulary?

"understand" here is a shorthand notion to express, "process (by which I
mean 'draw entailments from according to', etc.) the rdfs:Class
according to the spec which describes it, along with any and all other
processing requirements given in that document". I think in informal
debate, it's a perfectly usable term.


-- 
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk
(ECHOY GRUNTING) (EERIE WHISPERS) aren't subtitles great?