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

Re: Intentions of XMP

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 08:45:59 +0300
To: "RDF Core WG 7332#" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Message-ID: <wy2K22gWGrX3.t6qTbLNN@mail.nokia.com>

_____________Original message ____________
Subject:	Re: Intentions of XMP
Sender:	ext Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date:		Fri, 27 Sep 2002 08:41:25 +0300

At 21:49 26/09/2002 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote:


> >         Perhaps a clearer, more mnemonic way to ask this question
> >         would be, do the literal values of the following two properties
> >         mean the same thing to XMP applications? Would they be
> >         considered to carry equivalent semantics in both cases?
> >
> >         <xmp:CreateDate>2002-09-25T11:36:07Z</xmp:CreateDate>
> >         <dc:title>2002-09-25T11:36:07Z</dc:title>
>Oh dear, that's not the same question at all.  If we were going to ask
>Adobe, it would have been useful to agree the question first.
>         Oh come, now Brian. It precisely matches the structure
>         and semantics of the generic entailment.

I'd have preferred the question be asked in terms of neutral names as in 
the original:

   <a> <b> "foo" .
   <c> <d> "foo" .

As expressed, knowledge about the properties you have picked, built into 
XMP may have influenced the answer. 

	But Brian, it is *precisely* that built in knowledge we are
	testing! Does XMP interpret those literals as denoting
	stings or values.

 I'm also not at all happy with the 
accompanying words.

	I'm not so sure any words would have been acceptable
	if the end result was support for value bases semantics.

Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 01:50:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:00 UTC