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

Re: A plea for peace. was: RE: DAML+OIL (March 2001) released: a correction

From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 00:31:57 -0500
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: RDF Logic <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6F12052.8538%aswartz@swartzfam.com>
pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote:

> The way to fix RDF is to admit that logical content requires the use
> of some - maybe not many, but some - nontrivial syntactic
> constructions, in particular the use of nested expressions and
> quantifier scoping;

Isn't this already available in RDF in one form or another?

> to abandon the idea that syntax is the same as,
> or best coded using, reification;

I don't believe anyone ever said syntax should be coded as reification.
Merely that reification had a precise meaning ("I'm not saying this -- I'm
talking about it") and that it could be used to encode logical constructs
without necessarily bringing them into RDF Core.

Perhaps you could try hard to make it clear to those of us who are outside
of the logic community's terminology?

>> 1) imprecise perceptions about what URIs and resources are to begin with.
>> RFC 2396 is broad in its definitions and we might take this opportunity to
>> introduce more structure into the definitions of URI, URI reference,
>> resource, entity etc.
> I would welcome that. I am still trying to discover what a URI is
> beyond simply a URL. I suspect that it is to some extent an kind of

It is URLs + URNs + possibly other things in the future.

> W3 dream: a vision of a future where everything is on the Web and
> everything has a single True Name which all beings will recognize. I

No, of course not. As you say this is unlikely. While I sense that you are
trolling, I feel it is worthwhile to respond. No one ever said things would
have a One True Name. Instead, we merely have a system for giving all
objects names in a relatively distributed and at times decentralized manner.
URIs allow people to give things names, and often provide ways to find out
what they mean. They do not guarantee uniqueness, they do not guarantee
recognition, and, of course, it is impossible to prevent misuse/reuse but
URIs do try to mitigate the effects.

>> Working together is in everyone's best interest. A strong core RDF standard
>> is good for RDF and for everyone who uses RDF.
> I'm tempted to ask about those who DONT use RDF, but I guess this
> would be impolitic; so in the interests of collegiality I will
> refrain.

Of course it is not impolitic. I hope that we have a strong core RDF not for
the people who are using RDF but mostly for the people that aren't, and
might begin using it if it was clearer, simpler, or did not have the logical
flaws that you have raised.

[ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2001 01:32:08 UTC

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