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

Re: call for agenda items

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 17:36:15 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b0eba15913ce826@[10.0.100.86]>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>* Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com> [2002-12-05 14:34+0200]
>>
>>
>>
>>  [Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, 
>>patrick.stickler@nokia.com]
>>
>>
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>  From: "ext Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
>>  To: "Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org>
>>  Cc: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>; "RDF Core" 
>><w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
>>  Sent: 05 December, 2002 14:11
>>  Subject: Re: call for agenda items
>>
>>
>>  >
>>  > >>>Graham Klyne said:
>>  > >
>>  > > At 09:40 AM 12/5/02 +0000, Brian McBride wrote:
>>  > >
>>  > > >Sorry this is late.  I've been buried in other stuff and my network at
>>  > > >home went down last night.  I'm catching up this morning.
>>  > > >
>>  > > >Suggestions for agenda items for this weeks telecon welcome. 
>>Please let
>>  > > >me know what, if any, key issues you feel we need to discuss.
>>  > >
>>  > > Should rdf:value be deprecated?
>>  >
>>  > No.
>>  >
>>  > We owe the community not to arbitrarily chuck out stuff
>>
>>  I wouldn't consider a decision to deprecate rdf:value as "arbitrary".
>>  Clearly there's been alot of thought and discussion about it, and
>>  the fact that it has no actual semantics in the MT suggests that it
>>  has no place in the RDF vocabulary.
>
>That's a flawed argument, imho. Many meaningful constructs can't be
>easily captured using MT or inference rules

Then they should not be in the language. They can be in user 
ontologies, of course, but then its up to said user to describe them 
to their own satisfaction. Seems to me that we have a responsibility 
to give clear specifications for the meanings of the vocabulary we 
provide, or else to say clearly that they have no meaning. I'm quite 
happy to say that rdf:value has no meaning; but then I don't want the 
primer to explain this nonexistent meaning in intuitive terms.

>(unless you build a
>supporting framework on the scale of Cyc). For eg., rdfs:seeAlso and
>most of Dublin Core would probably also be thrown out on such principles.

I would like to throw out rdf:seeAlso, but at least we are honest 
about it being meaningless. As for Dublin Core, if it were up to us 
to say what it meant, yes, I would throw it out in an instant. 
Fortunately however it is not up to us to do that.

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 18:36:21 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:49 EDT