W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: Issue #pfps-15 Can RDF say anything about anything?

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 13:30:03 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030219132229.02f86a70@localhost>
To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org

At 10:52 18/02/2003 -0500, Frank Manola wrote:

[...]

>I agree we need to be clear about this issue, and I'll be happy to remove 
>that phrase.  However, as further clarification, could you (Brian) or 
>Peter point me to where Peter has objected to that?

Maybe "object" is too strong a term.  I was reacting to:

[[
I find this a general problem with the RDF documents.  A lofty principle is
stated, such as ``say anything ...'' or ``expressing information
... without loss of meaning'', but RDF doesn't even come close to the
principle.
]]

in

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0272.html

I searched for the 'without loss of meaning'.

>  My impression was that Peter had concerns about our documents (not just 
> this place in the Primer) being very clear as to what the "meaning" 
> actually was (that is, being clear about the meaning that can literally 
> be described by RDF, versus the "social meaning" or added meaning that 
> people may attach to it, by convention or otherwise).  Given that we're 
> clear about the "meaning" we're talking about (and maybe we can't be at 
> this point), it would appear that the "RDF meaning" should be exchangable 
> between applications without loss, while "social" or "conventional" 
> meanings might very well be lost (if the receiving application hasn't 
> been programmed with those meanings independently of what it receives in 
> the RDF).
>
>
>>The issue
>>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-15
>>concerns the sentence in the primer:
>>[[
>>These examples also illustrate one of the basic architectural principles 
>>of the Web, which is that anyone should be able say anything they want 
>>about existing resources [BERNERS-LEE98].
>>]]
>>which Peter states is contradicted by the fact that not all graphs can be 
>>serialized in RDF/XML.
>>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0194.html
>>Frank has suggested editorial rewording that is not acceptable to Peter.
>>This is not an issue of general applicability'.
>
>
>OK:  just Primer and Concepts then.

Well, this issue is about the phrase in the primer.  We may find others 
with concepts.

Brian
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2003 08:29:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT