W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2000

Re: But is it a model?

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:01:59 -0800
Message-ID: <3A26C047.B128137C@robustai.net>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
CC: www-rdf-interest@w3c.org
Graham Klyne wrote:

> At 08:35 AM 11/29/00 -0800, Seth Russell wrote:
> >Well whatever else it is, or isn't, I'll bet we can form a consensus that
> >a model
> >must at least contain statements.
> Unfortunately, it appears that we (all of us, and the RDF spec also) have
> been using the term "model" in a fashion that is inconsistent with
> logicians' usage.  It's now a three-way overloaded term :-(
> As for the consensus you suggest, I'm not sure.

Well I think that SUCKS!  Like the kiddies say ... I want my MTV ... well I
want my consensus!

But in defense of M&S ... it really doesn't use the term "model" , rather it
uses the term "data model".  So then, all we really need is a consensus of
what a "data model" consists of.   It seems to me that a model has a strong
commitment to logic, whereas a data model  has only a commitment to
unambiguous reference.

Also perhaps we could include in the consensus whether we are talking about
"The RDF data model" or "a RDF data model".  I know this is a bit of a nit,
but i find myself wanting more and more to be precise in my references, and to
have the image in my head correspond to the consensus image out there .. so
that means i would be wanting to say things like .... "Hey take a look at
MyMemory it implements a The RDF model" .... yuck!

Incidentally, what is the official URI for the RDF data model?
[RDF data model]  http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#model

Seth Russell
Received on Thursday, 30 November 2000 15:59:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:33 UTC