W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: need to determine what RDF is

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 11:09:51 -0400
To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: danbri@w3.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, em@w3.org, w3c-semweb-cg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020530110951E.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: need to determine what RDF is
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 16:04:15 +0100

> At 09:15 30/05/2002 -0400, Dan Brickley wrote:
> [...]
> >I'd like to hear from Eric and Brian w.r.t. whether they'd prefer RDF Core
> >or SW CG to take a first crack at this. Having it lodged in the RDF Issue
> >List seems worthwhile, regardless.
> I'm not clear what the problem is, so have no opinion at this point.  I 
> believe there has been previous discussion which I haven't read (yet).  It 
> would be helpful to have a succinct statement of the problem to capture in 
> the issues list.
> At a first glance I have no problem with Peter's definitions of RDF and 
> RDFS entailment, but I don't follow why they imply that we have to change 
> the text in the RDFS spec describing rdfs:comment.  I take it there is a 
> deep issue here, not just one of wordsmithing.
> Brian

The ``deep'' issue is that there continues to be claims that RDF
encompasses information not encoded in RDF graphs (or in RDF-defined
documents that can be transformed into RDF graphs).   The wording
associated with rdfs:comment appears to be capable of supporting this view,
although, as Pat Hayes has pointed out, it really does not.  I suppose that
this could be considered to be just wordsmithing, but wordsmithing taking
into account the implicit view of RDF.

Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 11:11:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:18 UTC