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@[]>
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.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Friday, 28 June 2002 01:55:24 UTC

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