W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > May 2001

Re: Language?

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 05:31:28 +0100
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010508052446.03695ce0@joy.songbird.com>
To: "Craig Pugsley" <cpugsley@bigfoot.com>
Cc: "RDF Interest Group" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 12:09 AM 5/8/01 +0100, Craig Pugsley wrote:
>Maybe I'm missing the point, but its my view that the key simile to a
>'conventional' spoken language that RDF carries is its ability to convey
>semantic information. We use languages to convey our own personal semantic
>representations of abstract concepts and ideas we have. And this is exactly
>what RDF is intended to (or at least 'can') do.

I think that *any* language can be interpreted to convey semantic information.

I think a goal of RDF is that it is structured in a way that makes it 
usable to convey a range of useful knowledge in a machine processable 
form.  That is, it is not the ability to convey semantics per se that makes 
RDF useful so much as the particular engineering choices for machine 
processability.

[...]
>I'd say that RDF <is> a language, very much in the same sense as non
>computer-based language.

I won't argue that point.  But it's not clear to me how non-computer 
languages are fundamentally different from computer languages, other than 
computer languages being engineered for machine interpretation of problem 
solutions in a relatively limited domain.

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2001 01:47:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:49 GMT