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

Re: rdf as a base for other languages

From: Lynn Andrea Stein <lynn.stein@olin.edu>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 15:18:53 -0400
Message-ID: <3B17EB26.A989B20A@olin.edu>
To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
From: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>

> From: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
> > The point is that some RDF vocabular terms need to be defined as
> > "operational" or "performative" for particular agents.
> I think all we need is just the one term, 'do'.  

'do' is an interesting and reasonable suggestion, but I think there's a
deeper issue here.  There are really three different attitudes that one
can take towards a statement confounded here.  As an example, say I see
the headline "watermelon-only diet guarantees weightloss!"

1. mention:
       I just told you about the headline.  I did not assert the truth
of the headline, nor do I necessarily believe it.

2. assertion:
       The Star Enquirer News, where I saw the headline, is understood
to be asserting the truth of the statement.  This (that the SEN asserted
the statement) is true regardless of the truth of the statment itself. 
That is, if I accept the SEN's statements (individually or wholesale) I
would be accepting the watermelon-weightloss connection.  It is also
true that any model (in the formal semantic sense) of SEN would validate
(i.e., make true) the watermelon-weightloss connection.  (It does not
mean that any such SEN-validating model actually exists!)

3. acceptance:
        RDF works on the principle that asserters accept what they're
saying, but that doesn't mean we have to.  So I can mention the headline
and even treat it as asserted by SEN, but since I don't tend to believe
what SEN says, I don't act on this assertion.  This, and not #2, is
where 'do' would come in handy.

I can't tell whether Peter is confounding 1 and 2 or 2 and 3.

Received on Friday, 1 June 2001 15:21:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:35 UTC