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

Re: Outline for new RDF document

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:29:29 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 06:54 PM 6/25/02 -0500, pat hayes wrote:
>>At 10:12 AM 6/25/02 -0500, pat hayes wrote:
>>>I do not think that any part of the final spec should express as 
>>>normative any aspect of RDF meaning which is not reflected in the model 
>>>theory. To do so makes the model theory worthless.
>>Leaving aside the issue of what is "normative", do you feel it is 
>>inappropriate to make statements about the *intended* meaning of RDF 
>>vocabulary that cannot be expressed by purely logical means?
>Well, maybe we have to do this, but I sure would like it to be kept to a 
>minimum. Its OK to have some stuff along the lines Tim wants talking about 
>the social meaning, but lets keep anything to do with what might be called 
>mechanical meaning (eg what a bag is) either in the MT or not anywhere. Im 
>quite willing to tweak the MT to fit anything that makes sense, but I 
>really think that we shouldn't put out a spec that says on the one hand 
>that the MT is the semantics, but also that parts of the language have a 
>different meaning that is only described in M&S-style prose.

Fair enough -- indeed I broadly agree.

I suggest that Jeremy and I draft some words in the new RDF document, then 
--with real text on the table-- we coordinate on agreeing what is needed 
and transplanting it to its rightful home.

This is not about describing a *different* meaning, but about adding prose 
to capture additional refinements of *intended* meaning that cannot be 
expressed in the formalism available.  Without doubt, the formal semantics 
is king, and I agree that the various aspects of meaning should ideally be 
in the same document.

Jeremy in particular has done a very useful job of reviewing the existing 
specs and issues and identifying possible gaps in the coverage.  If the new 
document becomes a staging post for new text before it finds its way into 
some more appropriate document, then I think that's a Good Thing.

For myself, I'm very keen to push ahead and prepare text because I believe 
that's more productive than talking about issues.  The group can then 
decide (a) if the text is correct, (b) if it's useful, and (c) where, if 
anywhere, it belongs.


Graham Klyne
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2002 04:15:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:58 UTC