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

RE: Dublin Core, the Primer and the Model Theory

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 15:54:43 +0100
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDEEPMCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Jeremy:
> Premise:
>  <eg:doc1> <dc:creator> <urn:id:1> .
>  <eg:doc2> <dc:creator> <urn:id:1> .
> Conclusion:
>  <eg:doc1> <dc:creator> _:blank .
>  <eg:doc2> <dc:creator> _:blank .
> 
Jeremy:
> Premise:
>  <eg:doc1> <dc:creator> "John Smith" .
>  <eg:doc2> <dc:creator> "John Smith" .
> Conclusion:
>  <eg:doc1> <dc:creator> _:blank .
>  <eg:doc2> <dc:creator> _:blank .

DanC:
> The way I see it, dc:creator relates a work to
> either its creator or a name for its creator.
> So the conclusion just says that the two works
> have either the same creator or have creators with
> the same name.

I think we are agreeing that the model theory is not
giving a useful entailment here. Since the conclusion
is the same in either case, the interesting first
case has become indistinguishable from the less
interesting second case.

I worry that this makes the MT irrelevant to the
DC community, until and unless they deprecate
the string-literal usage.

If DC ignore the model theory, and WebOnt have 
darkness to ignore the parts of the model theory 
they don't like, then  I am really not sure why 
we are bothering to make the model theory normative.

Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 16 May 2002 10:55:03 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:48:14 EDT