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

Re: [new issue] Assertion and provenance

From: Bob MacGregor <macgregor@ISI.EDU>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:41:46 -0800
Message-Id: <>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, fmanola@mitre.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org


I'm in agreement with all of the points you make below, and they cover all
of the issues that I was concerned about, so I'm happy with things as they
now stand.

Thanks for your response,

At 01:29 PM 2/28/2003 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote:
>At 05:36 PM 2/27/03 -0800, Bob MacGregor wrote:
>>At 10:35 PM 2/27/2003 +0000, Brian McBride wrote:
>>>At 13:31 27/02/2003 -0800, Bob MacGregor wrote:
>>>>Currently, only you and Pat Hayes have responded (back to me) to the
>>>>comments that I posted earlier to RDF-comments,
>>>Bob, I hope you don't think that is a bad thing.  The editors of each 
>>>document are handling the comments on their documents.  Please don't 
>>>expect the entire WG to join you in debate.
>>Having everyone chime in would not be a good thing.  I was not suggesting 
>>that I
>>should have had more responses, but I was hoping that to have gotten
>>a response about each issue that I raised.  Below, I mention the two 
>>unanwered issues
>I apologize.  I did not previously notice that your message included a 
>comment on the Concepts document, to which I shall try to respond...
>>>>  and those responses did not
>>>>include consideration of some of the issues I raised.
>>>That is a matter of concern to me.  It is our intent to ensure that each 
>>>issue is properly addressed.  Can I assume that any issues that you feel 
>>>have not been addressed are captured in this message, or are there 
>>>others you can refer me to?
>>One issue was the discussion surrounding the example
>>  "I don't believe that George is a clown" in the Concepts
>>and Abstract Syntax document,  the larger issue being
>>whether or not propositional attitudes are or should be expressible.
>>The (non-RDF) nested syntax in the Primer relates to the same issue
>>(but Frank has already replied to me about the Primer).
>Reference, Concepts section 4.1:
>Ouch!  That text was not intended to delve into issues of propositional 
>attitudes, but was merely intended to be an informal example of using a 
>statement without asserting it.
>RDF does not, of itself, provide mechanisms for expressing propositional 
>attitudes.  I'm not sure that it can within it's current semantic framework.
>As for the issue of indicating asserted and non-asserted forms, the short 
>answer is that RDF does not define such a mechanism.  I think this section 
>needs to be examined in light of your comments.  (I think the reification 
>constructs can be used by an application for such purposes, but such use 
>is not defined by RDF.)
>I think your concerns can be expressed thus:
>1. The Concepts document is not clear that RDF does not define a mechanism 
>for distinguishing asserted and non-asserted forms.
>2. The informal example in section 4.1 can be read as suggesting RDF 
>defined means to express propositional attitudes.  We should be clear that 
>propositional attitudes are not supported.
>You also raise an issue of provenance, but I don't think that impacts the 
>Concepts document.
>(You also note RDF's lack of a mechanism to refer to a graph;  by my 
>recollection, this idea, or something very like it, was discussed but 
>considered out of scope for the current WG effort, and has been noted as 
>an issue for possible future consideration.  I don't think there's 
>anything else we should say in our documents.)
>If this adequately captures your concerns, I'll ask Brian to raise an 
>issue for this, so the WG can consider your comments and get back to you.
>>The second issue is the question of unasserted forms/statements.
>>I am unable to find an RDF example of how to represent
>>a statement of belief (a propositional attitude).  Neither can
>>I find an example showing exactly what is meant by an
>>unasserted RDF statement. (If there are examples, they are not
>>identified as such.  Or I somehow missed them).
>>These are what I referred to as unanwered issues.  I'm hoping that
>>someone will tell me what the "official" position is.
>>My last e-mail summarized my position
>>as to these two issues, so I won't go any deeper here.
>Graham Klyne

Robert MacGregor
Project Leader
USC Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way, Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Phone: 310/448-8423, Fax: 310/822-6592
Mobile: 310/251-8488
Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 19:43:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:20 UTC