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

Re: Outline for new RDF document

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 00:55:25 -0500
Message-Id: <p05111b28b941aa4efc68@[65.217.30.113]>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
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.

OK, but this is a delicate line. If there really is some aspect of 
meaning that is intended and can be specified clearly, then we ought 
to try to get it into the MT. I am willing to work on that.

>  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.

Amen to that.

>The group can then decide (a) if the text is correct, (b) if it's 
>useful, and (c) where, if anywhere, it belongs.

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
Received on Friday, 28 June 2002 01:55:24 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:49:26 EDT