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

[RDF-Concepts:111-Various] RDF core, database example, soc-entailment

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:10:04 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030218165858.03bf4ec0@127.0.0.1>
To: onykane@butler.cc.tut.fi
Cc: RDF comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>

Ossi,

With reference to your comment:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0166.html

I accept a need for editorial revision, and have recorded it with id 
111-Various [**].  The purpose of the rest of this message is to try to 
ensure that I properly understand your concerns.

[**] for my own tracking purposes:  when the scope of the issue is 
established, I'll ask Brian to allocate a WG tracking ID.

My understanding of your concerns is this:

(1) Requests a more precise indication of the scope of "RDF core".
(2) The database example doesn't account of normal database assumption of 
unambiguous data.
(3) Characterization of "social entailment" is too strong.
The concern appears to be that agents might somehow be expected to be aware 
of entailments that are opaque to formal reasoning processes.

I think these are all issues that can be addressed editorially, since I 
don't think the concerns raised are at odds with the group's intent:

(1) The term "RDF core" isn't important to the definition of RDF, so I'll 
plan to remove it from the document.

(2) I think the database assumption of unambiguity is only a problem if we 
claim to represent *any* RDF in database form;  I don't see any problem there.
Can you cite an example of how this ambiguity might be a problem;  e.g. 
some RDF (used as an assertion) that could not be represented somehow in a 
relational database?  I'm happy to clarify this point, but am unsure what 
particular concern needs to be addressed here.

(3) I agree the issue of social meaning is poorly handled, and needs to be 
improved.  I think the main point we  need to convey here is that there may 
be social meaning associated with some RDF that is opaque to automated 
reasoning processes.  The secondary point is that such meaning may be 
embodied in some collection of RDF statements, and those statements may be 
obtained by application of a logically valid reasoning process.  But there 
is no intent that RDF agents somehow need to be aware of the social meaning.

The suggestion of non-opacity of social meaning seems to be the issue at 
the heart of your concerns about it, and I'll try to clarify this.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2003 11:28:41 GMT

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