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

RE: Reification

From: Peter Crowther <Peter.Crowther@melandra.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 18:23:23 +0100
Message-ID: <B6F03FDBA149CA41B6E9EB8A329EB12D05A10A@vault.melandra.net>
To: "'Danny Ayers'" <danny@panlanka.net>
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> From: Danny Ayers [mailto:danny@panlanka.net]
> What's wrong with my machine saying 'I talk RDF(S)+DAML' and 
> refusing to
> have anything to do with anything that doesn't understand 
> DAML

It's rather like saying "I will never be mugged because I refuse to have
anything to do with people who are muggers".  Operate in the right
environment and it is possible that you will be correct; but the muggers
don't know that you refuse to mix with *them*.

You cannot control what reads your RDF if you express something in RDF (just
as with HTML or with XML).  That reader may not be able to cope with your
range of expression, but may still try to extract what meaning it can (just
as with HTML or XML); and it may get entirely the wrong end of the stick
(unlike HTML or XML).

If RDF is designed (like any other Web protocol) to provide graceful
degradation, this is a disaster: imagine if an XHTML browser's tag for
"visible" caused all HTML4 and earlier browsers to *ignore* that content.

> - if this
> issue is *so* important, then everybody will include such a 
> constraint and you've got your common language.

Hasn't happened yet with any language or system of which I'm aware; can't
see it, myself, but would be fascinated to see a pointer to such a language
or system.

		- Peter
Received on Monday, 9 April 2001 13:23:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:38 GMT