Re: Dublin Core, the Primer and the Model Theory

At 10:26 AM 5/16/02 -0400, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>On 2002-05-16 7:09, "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> wrote:
>
> > At 10:32 AM 5/16/02 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> >> I believe that the sheer quantity of these examples in the
> >> primer indicates that this a substantial issue: that RDF, as
> >> deployed, particularly in Dublin Core, does not conform with
> >> the model theoretic changes agreed on the 22nd of February [2].
> >
> > With emphasis on "sheer quantity", I think this is a compelling argument,
> > which is not limited to Dublin Core.  (Though I do think that "does not
> > conform" is a slight overstatement, I do think this indicates a real 
> problem.)
> >
> > Similar issues arise in at least two other RDF vocabularies that I can 
> think
> > of
> > - CC/PP device capabilities and user preferences:
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/CCPP-struct-vocab/
> > - Photo labelling schema: http://www.w3.org/TR/photo-rdf/ (in particular,
> > section 5.2)
>
>Would you say that simpledatatypes2 accurately describes the
>present semantics employed by CC/PP?

It's difficult to say what "accurately describes" semantics as fuzzy as 
those of CC/PP.

I would say that simpledatatypes2 more closely reflects what I understand 
to be the intended interpretation of terms in a CC/PP expression.

Further, I think that simpledatatypes2 allows us to not rewrite the CC/PP 
schema;  the current proposal will require some changes to be made.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>