W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: pfps-16, proposed resolution

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 21:27:51 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 15:36 02/04/2003 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:
>I have a problem with the sentence:
>It is not a goal that RDF cannot prevent anyone from making assertions 
>that are nonsensical or inconsistent with other statements, or the world 
>as people see it, and applications that build upon RDF are expected to 
>find ways to deal with incomplete and conflicting sources of information.
>The complexity of the sentence, the double negative at the start bother 
>me.  So does the last bit, though I accept it was in the lc wd.  My 
>applications do nothing about dealing with incomplete and conflicting 
>sources of information.

Er, yes, the double negative isn't only confusing -- it's wrong.  Also, I 
agree the final sentence is out of place here.  Here's what I now have:

In general, it is not assumed that the information about any resource is 
complete: there may be information that is not yet available. RDF does not 
prevent anyone from making assertions that are nonsensical or inconsistent 
with other statements, or the world as people see it. Designers of 
applications that use RDF should be aware of this and may design their 
applications to tolerate incomplete or inconsistent sources of information.

>>(3) revised content of section 3.5:


>I suggest dropping the last two paragraphs.  These get us into murky 
>waters.  They are not needed to dispose of macgregor-01/02.  Better, I 
>suggest, not to mention them.



Graham Klyne
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2003 15:56:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:05 UTC