W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > April 2001

Re: semantics status of RDF(S)

From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 00:31:57 -0500
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: RDF Logic <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6F11A9F.8535%aswartz@swartzfam.com>
Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:

> All four of these triples have the same status as triples like
>   { loves, john, mary }
> and clutter up the semantic message of a document.

Clutter up the semantic message? What is the problem here? You're saying
something, and we're using triples to say it. The semantic message is clear.
You are saying something about a statement, but not asserting the statement.
The meaning of what you are saying is defined as all RDF properties are.

> Yes, three of these triples use RDF reification predicates and so can, maybe,
> be ignored by RDF processors who are not interested in reified statements (but
> it is very dangerous to do so).  However, the first triple uses a predicate
> that is in no way special to RDF and so I don't see how RDF processors and
> applications can treat it in any other way than triples like

No, they wouldn't treat it in any special way. They would merely interpret
the semantics of your message properly. Since you are asserting a negation,
you are not asserting the actual triple, so you are OK there. Programs that
will understand your message will deal with it as needed, those that don't
will not believe the negated statement, but know that some operation is
performed upon it, and can use this just as they would a normal triple with
a property they didn't understand. Where is the issue here? Perhaps an
example would help.

[ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2001 01:32:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:34 UTC