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

Re: ACTION: 2001-11-16#7

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:19:45 -0500
Message-ID: <3C6BD591.309@mitre.org>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Brian--

I like your rewordings.  The original statements sounded too much like 
the Cabinet Secretary's 5 minute convoluted descriptions of some 
situation in "Yes, Prime Minister" to which the Primer Minister would 
reply "What the hell are you talking about?", and the Secretary would 
translate it all to something like "We did a deal."

--Frank


Brian McBride wrote:

> At 09:04 14/02/2002 -0500, Frank Manola wrote:
> 
>> Brian McBride wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>   o. While this provides no way to express a negative (negated)
>>>      boolean value, the addition of such an ability would extend
>>>      RDF beyond its anticipated semantic basis, requiring
>>>      unacceptably far-reaching changes.
>>>   o. The WG resolves to close this issue on the grounds that the
>>>      current facilities are adequate for all purposes that do not
>>>      over-extend RDF.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Brian--
>>
>>
>> I have a mild amount of heartburn over the wording of these bullets; 
>> it's not clear what they means, other than we don't intend to do 
>> anything more about it.  Specifically:
>>
>> a.   what does "would extend RDF beyond its anticipated semantic 
>> basis, requiring unacceptably far-reaching changes" mean (or, even 
>> more specifically, what is RDF's "anticipated semantic basis")?  Could 
>> we be more specific?  (Could we cite the charter?)
> 
> 
> I think it means RDF doesn't support negation.
> 
> 
>> b.  "the current facilities are adequate for all purposes that do not 
>> over-extend RDF" sounds like bureaucratese for "the current facilities 
>> are adequate for all purposes that do not require other facilities".
>>
>> I'd like for us to be more plain and straightforward about such 
>> justifications if we can.
>>
>> Maybe I just need some more sleep (if I had some, or knew more about 
>> the subject, maybe I'd concoct an alternative)
> 
> 
> Well I guess that ought to be rule, - there ain't no objections without 
> a counter proposal.
> 
> or alternately we could try a different tack and apply what I think of 
> as "Connoly's Law"; if in trouble finding words, switch to test cases.
> 
> The WG resolves that:
> 
> Boolean valued properties can, in part, be expressed using rdf:type, for 
> example:
> 
>   <http://example/George> <rdf:type> <http://example/ChocolateLover> .
>   <http://example/Thomas> <rdf:type> <http://example/ChocolateHater> .
> 
> The WG notes that RDF(S) defines no built in mechanism for expressing 
> that ChocolateLover and ChocolateHater are disjoint classes.  The WEBONT WG
> are defining mechanisms for such expressions.
> 
> Brian
> 


-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 10:14:48 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:11 EDT