W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > June 2002

Re: What is truth anyways? was: [...]

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 18:15:11 -0400
Message-ID: <01eb01c2125e$9ea9f740$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
To: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "patrick hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>

patrick hayes wrote:

..
>
> >It seems that unless this is done in an
> >unambiguous fashion, any formal infrastructure built on top is sort of
like
> >rearranging, err straightening, deck chairs ...
>
> Good analogy. At least the inference machines can be built so that
> they keep the deck-chairs straight. Not much, but a start. Better
> than each deck chair having its own compass.

My view is that something like OWL and/or RDFS is needed define the meaning
of the URI reference e.g. the class which is identified by the URI ref. But
we need to _say that_ and deal with what is at the end of the URI reference
(rather than continue to hand wave about what a URI reference itself means).

>
> I don't quite understand why people seem to think that to insist on
> the SW content exchange languages having a clear semantics is somehow
> taking a stance against the existence of social conventions.

Don't mistake my position. Clear semantics is vitally important. But
moreover, the _RDF model theory itself_ is perhaps not nearly as important
as the mechanism to "layer" model theories in a sensible fashion -- which is
something that the most current RDF MT WD appears woefully inadequate in
addressing. So I am really just saying that since base RDF inferencing
itself isn't so useful, that unless we can meaningfully layer model theories
(and if you don't like this term, then I leave to to figure out what I mean
:-)) that _the RDF model theory_ is not useful. Not a position against clear
semantics, rather a position against _a semantics that is so rigid it
becomes not useful_.

So I've had a chance to skim through your latest idea at layering model
theories and while I can't comment on the implementation, this is clearly
the correct idea (of course just IMHO)

Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 18:20:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:42 GMT