W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2003

[Fwd: Review RDF: Concepts and Abstract Syntax (1rst part)]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 11:35:11 -0600
To: www-archive@w3.org
Message-id: <1045157711.8923.81.camel@dirk.dm93.org>
making these available...

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/


MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-description: Forwarded message - [Moderator Action] Review RDF:
	Concepts and Abstract Syntax (1rst part)

Return-path: <www-webont-wg-request@w3.org>
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [18.29.1.71])
 by tux.w3.org	(8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA18879 for <connolly@w3.org>; Wed,
 12 Feb 2003 11:46:58 -0500
Received: (from lists@localhost) by frink.w3.org (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6)
 id	h1CGkw705872 for connolly@w3.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 11:46:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tux.w3.org (tux [18.29.0.27])
 by frink.w3.org	(8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1CGkuR05833 for
	<www-webont-wg@frink.w3.org>; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 11:46:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ebene.inrialpes.fr (ebene.inrialpes.fr [194.199.18.70])
 by	tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA18861 for <www-webont-wg@w3.org>;
 Wed, 12 Feb 2003 11:46:55 -0500
Received: from imap-serv.inrialpes.fr (imap-serv.inrialpes.fr	[194.199.18.72])
 by ebene.inrialpes.fr (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id	h1CGkrq12631 for
 <www-webont-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:46:53 +0100 (MET)
Received: from festino (nandadevi.inrialpes.fr [194.199.22.94])
 by	imap-serv.inrialpes.fr (8.11.6/8.11.3/ImagV2) with ESMTP id h1CGksS26725
	for <www-webont-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:46:54 +0100 (MET)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 11:46:58 -0500 (EST)
From: =?UNKNOWN?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois?= BAGET <Jean-Francois.Baget@inrialpes.fr>
Subject: [Moderator Action] Review RDF: Concepts and Abstract Syntax (1rst	part)
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <000001c2d2b6$59ce7a60$5e16c7c2@festino>
X-Envelope-from: www-webont-wg-request@tux.w3.org
X-Envelope-to: www-webont-wg@core.uniteone.com
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
Old-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:46:54 +0100
X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list
X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored
X-Spam-Status: No,
 hits=1.5 required=4.5	tests=LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,LINES_OF_YELLING_3,
	SPAM_PHRASE_00_01 version=2.43
X-Spam-Level: *



RESOURCE DESCRIPTION FRAMEWORK (RDF):
CONCEPTS AND ABSTRACT SYNTAX

The main goal of this document is to define an abstract syntax for RDF
(core). It is thus a bridge between the two other RDF core normative
documents: "RDF Semantics" and "RDF/XML Syntax Specification".

This document is organized in the following way:

2 - MOTIVATION AND GOALS
3 - RDF CONCEPTS
4 - MEANING OF RDF
5 - XML CONTENT WITHIN AN RDF GRAPH
6 - ABSTRACT SYNTAX
7 - FRAGMENT IDENTIFIERS

My review will first point out some features of this document that could
cause problems to the OWL language(s). It is a basis of discussion for
the WebOnt working group. Second part of this review are personal
remarks/suggestions about the document, and as such should be directed
to the RDFCore working group.

A - RDF CONCEPTS AND ABSTRACT SYNTAX: IMPACT ON OWL
---------------------------------------------------

As far as I know, this document does not contain any problem with
respect to the abstract syntax of RDF, and examples of entailments
suggested in the document respect as well "RDF Semantics" as the
documents prepared in the WebOnt working group. Specifications for URIs
or datatypes encoding are out of the scope of my expertise.

The WebOnt working group should discuss about this document 4th section:
MEANING OF RDF. Excepted for the last subsection (4.5 Example), this
section is NORMATIVE.
We can read that an RDF graph has formal semantics (as defined in "RDF
Semantics") as well as a social meaning. In 4.1: a graph can be asserted
(it makes claims about the 'real' world, so can be used for inferences),
or non asserted (meaning is "partly determined by the circumstances
[...]").
In 4.2: combining legal (e.g. saying somewhere "the following graph is
not true") and technical machinery (e.g. an external media type to label
information) to distinguish asserted graphs from non asserted ones.
In 4.3: advice to use URIs defined by reputable organizations.
In 4.4: social meaning is applied to formally inferred consequences of a
document.
In 4.5 (NON NORMATIVE): example showing who is responsible for inference
results whose social meaning can be considered insulting.

A1 - QUESTIONS TO THE WEBONT WORKING GROUP

1) ASSERTED/NON ASSERTED
Since proposed ways to distinguish between asserted and non asserted
forms are "opaque to logical reasoners", what confidence can we have in
RDF reasoners ? And since they are a subclass of OWL reasoners...

2)(SOCIAL/LEGAL) RESPONSIBILITY
The last example shows who is "socially responsible" for insulting
inferences using many RDF documents. The "social culprit" can be
identified for a RDF reasoner. This cannot be extended to OWL reasoners
(prime implicates ?). I do not know what can be the impact of this
notion of social/legal responsibility in such a normative document...

A2 - PROPOSAL(S)

I think that saying a graph can be asserted or non asserted (especially
in a normative section of a normative document)  weakens the semantics
of RDF (and by extension those of OWL), since nothing in the RDF syntax
provides a way to distinguish between those two cases. I see two
solutions:

	- remove this discussion, or at least weaken its impact. To
remove it, it is necessary to remove the 9th line of subsection 2.2: "A
basis for legally binding arguments", subsection 2.2.8, and all section
4 except the two first lines. To weaken it, change section 4 title (by
example "PUBLISHING RDF ON THE WEB"), make it non normative, and remove
all references to "legal bindings".

	- find a way to explicitely label a graph as non asserted in an
RDF graph itself. It should be possible using by example the reification
mechanism to describe a "nesting structure", as was done by example to
extend conceptual graphs. However, there should be still a lot of work
for a last call working draft...



Jean-François BAGET
EXMO Team
INRIA Rhône-Alpes



Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-description: Forwarded message - [Moderator Action] RE : WOWG:	Agenda
 Feb 13 telecon

Return-path: <www-webont-wg-request@w3.org>
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [18.29.1.71])
 by tux.w3.org	(8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21924 for <connolly@w3.org>; Wed,
 12 Feb 2003 11:54:08 -0500
Received: (from lists@localhost) by frink.w3.org (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6)
 id	h1CGs8q08486 for connolly@w3.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 11:54:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tux.w3.org (tux [18.29.0.27])
 by frink.w3.org	(8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1CGs6R08450 for
	<www-webont-wg@frink.w3.org>; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 11:54:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ebene.inrialpes.fr (ebene.inrialpes.fr [194.199.18.70])
 by	tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21881 for <www-webont-wg@w3.org>;
 Wed, 12 Feb 2003 11:54:05 -0500
Received: from imap-serv.inrialpes.fr (imap-serv.inrialpes.fr	[194.199.18.72])
 by ebene.inrialpes.fr (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id	h1CGrgq12880 for
 <www-webont-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:53:42 +0100 (MET)
Received: from festino (nandadevi.inrialpes.fr [194.199.22.94])
 by	imap-serv.inrialpes.fr (8.11.6/8.11.3/ImagV2) with ESMTP id h1CGrhS27448
	for <www-webont-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:53:43 +0100 (MET)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 11:54:08 -0500 (EST)
From: =?UNKNOWN?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois?= BAGET <Jean-Francois.Baget@inrialpes.fr>
Subject: [Moderator Action] RE : WOWG: Agenda Feb 13 telecon
In-reply-to: <3E4A7AAA.9040804@swi.psy.uva.nl>
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <000401c2d2b7$4d5fb040$5e16c7c2@festino>
X-Envelope-from: www-webont-wg-request@tux.w3.org
X-Envelope-to: www-webont-wg@core.uniteone.com
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
Old-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:53:43 +0100
X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list
X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored
X-Spam-Status: No,
 hits=-0.3 required=4.5	tests=IN_REP_TO,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,
	LINES_OF_YELLING_3,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,SUBJECT_MONTH,
 SUBJECT_MONTH_2	version=2.43
X-Spam-Level:



RESOURCE DESCRIPTION FRAMEWORK (RDF):
CONCEPTS AND ABSTRACT SYNTAX

Review by J.François Baget (1rst part)

The main goal of this document is to define an abstract syntax for RDF
(core). It is thus a bridge between the two other RDF core normative
documents: "RDF Semantics" and "RDF/XML Syntax Specification".

This document is organized in the following way:

2 - MOTIVATION AND GOALS
3 - RDF CONCEPTS
4 - MEANING OF RDF
5 - XML CONTENT WITHIN AN RDF GRAPH
6 - ABSTRACT SYNTAX
7 - FRAGMENT IDENTIFIERS

My review will first point out some features of this document that could
cause problems to the OWL language(s). It is a basis of discussion for
the WebOnt working group. Second part of this review are personal
remarks/suggestions about the document, and as such should be directed
to the RDFCore working group.

A - RDF CONCEPTS AND ABSTRACT SYNTAX: IMPACT ON OWL
---------------------------------------------------

As far as I know, this document does not contain any problem with
respect to the abstract syntax of RDF, and examples of entailments
suggested in the document respect as well "RDF Semantics" as the
documents prepared in the WebOnt working group. Specifications for URIs
or datatypes encoding are out of the scope of my expertise.

The WebOnt working group should discuss about this document 4th section:
MEANING OF RDF. Excepted for the last subsection (4.5 Example), this
section is NORMATIVE. We can read that an RDF graph has formal semantics
(as defined in "RDF Semantics") as well as a social meaning. In 4.1: a
graph can be asserted (it makes claims about the 'real' world, so can be
used for inferences), or non asserted (meaning is "partly determined by
the circumstances [...]"). In 4.2: combining legal (e.g. saying
somewhere "the following graph is not true") and technical machinery
(e.g. an external media type to label information) to distinguish
asserted graphs from non asserted ones.
In 4.3: advice to use URIs defined by reputable organizations. In 4.4:
social meaning is applied to formally inferred consequences of a
document. In 4.5 (NON NORMATIVE): example showing who is responsible for
inference results whose social meaning can be considered insulting.

A1 - QUESTIONS TO THE WEBONT WORKING GROUP

1) ASSERTED/NON ASSERTED
Since proposed ways to distinguish between asserted and non asserted
forms are "opaque to logical reasoners", what confidence can we have in
RDF reasoners ? And since they are a subclass of OWL reasoners...

2)(SOCIAL/LEGAL) RESPONSIBILITY
The last example shows who is "socially responsible" for insulting
inferences using many RDF documents. The "social culprit" can be
identified for a RDF reasoner. This cannot be extended to OWL reasoners
(prime implicates ?). I do not know what can be the impact of this
notion of social/legal responsibility in such a normative document...

A2 - PROPOSAL(S)

I think that saying a graph can be asserted or non asserted (especially
in a normative section of a normative document)  weakens the semantics
of RDF (and by extension those of OWL), since nothing in the RDF syntax
provides a way to distinguish between those two cases. I see two
solutions:

	- remove this discussion, or at least weaken its impact. To
remove it, it is necessary to remove the 9th line of subsection 2.2: "A
basis for legally binding arguments", subsection 2.2.8, and all section
4 except the two first lines. To weaken it, change section 4 title (by
example "PUBLISHING RDF ON THE WEB"), make it non normative, and remove
all references to "legal bindings".

	- find a way to explicitely label a graph as non asserted in an
RDF graph itself. It should be possible using by example the reification
mechanism to describe a "nesting structure", as was done by example to
extend conceptual graphs. However, there should be still a lot of work
for a last call working draft...



Jean-François BAGET
EXMO Team
INRIA Rhône-Alpes


Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-description: Forwarded message - [Moderator Action] Review RDF:
	Concepts and Abstract Syntax (1rst part)

Return-path: <www-webont-wg-request@w3.org>
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [18.29.1.71])
 by tux.w3.org	(8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA30941 for <connolly@w3.org>; Thu,
 13 Feb 2003 03:37:30 -0500
Received: (from lists@localhost) by frink.w3.org (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6)
 id	h1D8bUi16353 for connolly@w3.org; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 03:37:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tux.w3.org (tux [18.29.0.27])
 by frink.w3.org	(8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1D8bRR16318 for
	<www-webont-wg@frink.w3.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 03:37:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ebene.inrialpes.fr (ebene.inrialpes.fr [194.199.18.70])
 by	tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA30938 for <www-webont-wg@w3.org>;
 Thu, 13 Feb 2003 03:37:26 -0500
Received: from imap-serv.inrialpes.fr (imap-serv.inrialpes.fr	[194.199.18.72])
 by ebene.inrialpes.fr (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id	h1D8bMq01621 for
 <www-webont-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:37:22 +0100 (MET)
Received: from festino (nandadevi.inrialpes.fr [194.199.22.94])
 by	imap-serv.inrialpes.fr (8.11.6/8.11.3/ImagV2) with ESMTP id h1D8bLS16719
	for <www-webont-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:37:22 +0100 (MET)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 03:37:30 -0500 (EST)
From: =?UNKNOWN?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois?= BAGET <Jean-Francois.Baget@inrialpes.fr>
Subject: [Moderator Action] Review RDF: Concepts and Abstract Syntax (1rst	part)
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <001301c2d33b$1fb17550$5e16c7c2@festino>
X-Envelope-from: www-webont-wg-request@tux.w3.org
X-Envelope-to: www-webont-wg@core.uniteone.com
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
Old-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:37:20 +0100
X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list
X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored
X-Spam-Status: No,
 hits=1.5 required=4.5	tests=LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,LINES_OF_YELLING_3,
	SPAM_PHRASE_00_01 version=2.43
X-Spam-Level: *



RESOURCE DESCRIPTION FRAMEWORK (RDF):
CONCEPTS AND ABSTRACT SYNTAX

Sorry for being late for this review: I sent it yesterday, but gave one
of my mail address that is not registered in WebOnt: so it was not
accepted...

The main goal of this document is to define an abstract syntax for RDF
(core). It is thus a bridge between the two other RDF core normative
documents: "RDF Semantics" and "RDF/XML Syntax Specification".

This document is organized in the following way:

2 - MOTIVATION AND GOALS
3 - RDF CONCEPTS
4 - MEANING OF RDF
5 - XML CONTENT WITHIN AN RDF GRAPH
6 - ABSTRACT SYNTAX
7 - FRAGMENT IDENTIFIERS

My review will first point out some features of this document that could
cause problems to the OWL language(s). It is a basis of discussion for
the WebOnt working group. Second part of this review are personal
remarks/suggestions about the document, and as such should be directed
to the RDFCore working group.

A - RDF CONCEPTS AND ABSTRACT SYNTAX: IMPACT ON OWL
---------------------------------------------------

As far as I know, this document does not contain any problem with
respect to the abstract syntax of RDF, and examples of entailments
suggested in the document respect as well "RDF Semantics" as the
documents prepared in the WebOnt working group. Specifications for URIs
or datatypes encoding are out of the scope of my expertise.

The WebOnt working group should discuss about this document 4th section:
MEANING OF RDF. Excepted for the last subsection (4.5 Example), this
section is NORMATIVE. We can read that an RDF graph has formal semantics
(as defined in "RDF Semantics") as well as a social meaning. In 4.1: a
graph can be asserted (it makes claims about the 'real' world, so can be
used for inferences), or non asserted (meaning is "partly determined by
the circumstances [...]"). In 4.2: combining legal (e.g. saying
somewhere "the following graph is not true") and technical machinery
(e.g. an external media type to label information) to distinguish
asserted graphs from non asserted ones.
In 4.3: advice to use URIs defined by reputable organizations. In 4.4:
social meaning is applied to formally inferred consequences of a
document. In 4.5 (NON NORMATIVE): example showing who is responsible for
inference results whose social meaning can be considered insulting.

A1 - QUESTIONS TO THE WEBONT WORKING GROUP

1) ASSERTED/NON ASSERTED
Since proposed ways to distinguish between asserted and non asserted
forms are "opaque to logical reasoners", what confidence can we have in
RDF reasoners ? And since they are a subclass of OWL reasoners...

2)(SOCIAL/LEGAL) RESPONSIBILITY
The last example shows who is "socially responsible" for insulting
inferences using many RDF documents. The "social culprit" can be
identified for a RDF reasoner. This cannot be extended to OWL reasoners
(prime implicates ?). I do not know what can be the impact of this
notion of social/legal responsibility in such a normative document...

A2 - PROPOSAL(S)

I think that saying a graph can be asserted or non asserted (especially
in a normative section of a normative document)  weakens the semantics
of RDF (and by extension those of OWL), since nothing in the RDF syntax
provides a way to distinguish between those two cases. I see two
solutions:

	- remove this discussion, or at least weaken its impact. To
remove it, it is necessary to remove the 9th line of subsection 2.2: "A
basis for legally binding arguments", subsection 2.2.8, and all section
4 except the two first lines. To weaken it, change section 4 title (by
example "PUBLISHING RDF ON THE WEB"), make it non normative, and remove
all references to "legal bindings".

	- find a way to explicitely label a graph as non asserted in an
RDF graph itself. It should be possible using by example the reification
mechanism to describe a "nesting structure", as was done by example to
extend conceptual graphs. However, there should be still a lot of work
for a last call working draft...



Jean-François BAGET
EXMO Team
INRIA Rhône-Alpes


Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-description: Forwarded message - [Moderator Action] Review RDF:
	Concepts and Abstract Syntax (1rst part)

Return-path: <www-webont-wg-request@w3.org>
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [18.29.1.71])
 by tux.w3.org	(8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA04134 for <connolly@w3.org>; Thu,
 13 Feb 2003 04:01:45 -0500
Received: (from lists@localhost) by frink.w3.org (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6)
 id	h1D91iE21639 for connolly@w3.org; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 04:01:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tux.w3.org (tux [18.29.0.27])
 by frink.w3.org	(8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1D91bR21419 for
	<www-webont-wg@frink.w3.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 04:01:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ebene.inrialpes.fr (ebene.inrialpes.fr [194.199.18.70])
 by	tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA03901 for <www-webont-wg@w3.org>;
 Thu, 13 Feb 2003 04:01:35 -0500
Received: from [194.199.20.189] (celarent.inrialpes.fr [194.199.20.189])
 by	ebene.inrialpes.fr (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1D91X702754 for
	<www-webont-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:01:33 +0100 (MET)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 04:01:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Jean-Francois.Baget@inrialpes.fr (Jean-Francois Baget)
Subject: [Moderator Action] Review RDF: Concepts and Abstract Syntax (1rst	part)
X-Sender: euzenat@pop-serv.inrialpes.fr
To: WebOnt WG <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <a05200f03ba710e94f75f@[194.199.20.189]>
X-Envelope-from: www-webont-wg-request@tux.w3.org
X-Envelope-to: www-webont-wg@core.uniteone.com
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=iso-8859-1; FORMAT=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Old-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:01:02 +0100
X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list
X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored
X-Spam-Status: No,
 hits=1.5 required=4.5	tests=LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,LINES_OF_YELLING_3,
	SPAM_PHRASE_00_01 version=2.43
X-Spam-Level: *



[Jerome posting on behalf of Jean-Fran=E7ois who have trouble posting=20
to the list]

RESOURCE DESCRIPTION FRAMEWORK (RDF):
CONCEPTS AND ABSTRACT SYNTAX

Sorry for being late for this review: I sent it yesterday, but gave one
of my mail address that is not registered in WebOnt: so it was not
accepted...

The main goal of this document is to define an abstract syntax for RDF
(core). It is thus a bridge between the two other RDF core normative
documents: "RDF Semantics" and "RDF/XML Syntax Specification".

This document is organized in the following way:

2 - MOTIVATION AND GOALS
3 - RDF CONCEPTS
4 - MEANING OF RDF
5 - XML CONTENT WITHIN AN RDF GRAPH
6 - ABSTRACT SYNTAX
7 - FRAGMENT IDENTIFIERS

My review will first point out some features of this document that could
cause problems to the OWL language(s). It is a basis of discussion for
the WebOnt working group. Second part of this review are personal
remarks/suggestions about the document, and as such should be directed
to the RDFCore working group.

A - RDF CONCEPTS AND ABSTRACT SYNTAX: IMPACT ON OWL
---------------------------------------------------

As far as I know, this document does not contain any problem with
respect to the abstract syntax of RDF, and examples of entailments
suggested in the document respect as well "RDF Semantics" as the
documents prepared in the WebOnt working group. Specifications for URIs
or datatypes encoding are out of the scope of my expertise.

The WebOnt working group should discuss about this document 4th section:
MEANING OF RDF. Excepted for the last subsection (4.5 Example), this
section is NORMATIVE. We can read that an RDF graph has formal semantics
(as defined in "RDF Semantics") as well as a social meaning. In 4.1: a
graph can be asserted (it makes claims about the 'real' world, so can be
used for inferences), or non asserted (meaning is "partly determined by
the circumstances [...]"). In 4.2: combining legal (e.g. saying
somewhere "the following graph is not true") and technical machinery
(e.g. an external media type to label information) to distinguish
asserted graphs from non asserted ones.
In 4.3: advice to use URIs defined by reputable organizations. In 4.4:
social meaning is applied to formally inferred consequences of a
document. In 4.5 (NON NORMATIVE): example showing who is responsible for
inference results whose social meaning can be considered insulting.

A1 - QUESTIONS TO THE WEBONT WORKING GROUP

1) ASSERTED/NON ASSERTED
Since proposed ways to distinguish between asserted and non asserted
forms are "opaque to logical reasoners", what confidence can we have in
RDF reasoners ? And since they are a subclass of OWL reasoners...

2)(SOCIAL/LEGAL) RESPONSIBILITY
The last example shows who is "socially responsible" for insulting
inferences using many RDF documents. The "social culprit" can be
identified for a RDF reasoner. This cannot be extended to OWL reasoners
(prime implicates ?). I do not know what can be the impact of this
notion of social/legal responsibility in such a normative document...

A2 - PROPOSAL(S)

I think that saying a graph can be asserted or non asserted (especially
in a normative section of a normative document)  weakens the semantics
of RDF (and by extension those of OWL), since nothing in the RDF syntax
provides a way to distinguish between those two cases. I see two
solutions:

	- remove this discussion, or at least weaken its impact. To
remove it, it is necessary to remove the 9th line of subsection 2.2: "A
basis for legally binding arguments", subsection 2.2.8, and all section
4 except the two first lines. To weaken it, change section 4 title (by
example "PUBLISHING RDF ON THE WEB"), make it non normative, and remove
all references to "legal bindings".

	- find a way to explicitely label a graph as non asserted in an
RDF graph itself. It should be possible using by example the reification
mechanism to describe a "nesting structure", as was done by example to
extend conceptual graphs. However, there should be still a lot of work
for a last call working draft...



Jean-Fran=E7ois BAGET
EXMO Team
INRIA Rh=F4ne-Alpes
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2003 12:35:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:26 GMT