Re: what is the meaning of the RDF model theory?

From: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>

> >I don't expect you or the W3C to adopt that philosophy ... but by the
same
> >token I don't expect you to rule it out by what you write in our
> >specifications.
>
> Tough luck. But in any case, if you are uninterested in truthvalues
> or interpretations, and consider them unimportant, the existence of
> an MT does not restrain your activities in any way. Just ignore it.

Ok, I pretty much intend to.  Yet, I must confess,  I am drawn to this
theory, I am fascinated by it  ... it somehow lends legitimacy to our
graphs.   I even want a model theory for mentography.  Anyone want to help
me make one?

> >Now let me ask a more practical question which, hopefully, will help me
> >focus my understanding of your document.   Before the Model Theory [1],
we
> >had RDF graphs and detailed specifications of how to form and communicate
> >them [2 - 6].  Can you provide an actual example of a RDF graph that
adheres
> >to those specifications, yet is invalid according to the Model Theory ?
>
> No, but the question isn't meaningful. Validity is a property of a(n
> inference) process that transforms graphs into other graphs, not a
> property of  a graph.

Ok, I used the wrong word again.  The question I am trying to ask in the
broadest terms is:  What difference will the MT make?.   It seems to me that
the MT is supposed to tell us what a graph ~means~ and even provides an
algorithm to determine that ~meaning~.  But this ~interpretation thingy~ can
never be manifested inside a computer (can it?), so the algorithm can never
be run (can it?).  What real difference can this theory make, except to be
used by people in their imagination to stamp the process as legitimate ?

Seth Russell

Received on Monday, 8 October 2001 14:06:53 UTC