Re: MISC: Internet Media Type registration: proposed TAG finding

>From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
>Subject: Re: MISC: Internet Media Type registration: proposed TAG finding
>Date: 23 May 2002 22:08:16 -0500
>
>>  On Thu, 2002-05-23 at 19:14, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>  > For example, I could claim that pfps:Truth is a part of RDF, 
>>whose intended
>>  > meaning is the type of all true propositions in first-order logic.  Does
>>  > mean that RDF captures first-order truth?  Not at all!
>>
>>  I'm not sure what you mean by 'captures', but yes, your pfps schema/spec
>>  would provide a term that folks can use to claim, in RDF syntax,
>>  that things are first-order truths.
>>
>>  It wouldn't be unprecedented, by the way:
>>
>>    http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#Truth
>>
>>  > > These
>>  > > informal prose documents, e.g. the dublin core spec,
>>  > > still have semantics: they still divide interpretations
>>  > > into true and false.
>>  >
>>  > Sure, but this informal part is *not* part of RDF.
>>
>>  I accept that as your opinion. I disagree.
>>  Perhaps if you'd share the argument that leads
>>  you to that conclusion, we could discuss it further.
>
>Well, I was going to say the following that there was nothing in the RDF
>specification that would sanction the inclusion of user-written prose in the
>meaning of RDF documents.  However, then I re-read the RDFSS, and found
>
>       rdfs:comment
>
>       The <code>rdfs:comment</code> property is used to provide a
>       human-readable description of a resource.
>
>       A textual comment helps clarify the meaning of RDF classes
>       and properties. Such inline documentation complements the use
>       of both formal techniques (Ontology and rule languages) and
>       informal (prose documentation, examples, test cases). A
>       variety of documentation forms can be combined to indicate
>       the intended meaning of the classes and properties described
>       in an RDF Schema.
>
>       Multilingual documentation of schemas is supported at the
>       syntactic level through use of the <code>xml:lang</code>
>       language tagging facility. Since RDF schemas are expressed as
>       RDF graphs, vocabularies defined in other namespaces may be
>       used to provide richer documentation.
>
>So, I do have to agree that in a certain sense, RDFS (not RDF itself,
>however) *does* indeed bring the meaning of user-written prose into the
>meaning of its documents.  Further, I believe that the creators of RDFS did
>indeed want this prose to affect the meaning of RDFS documents.  Sorry,
>Pat, you will have to redo your model theory document.

I don't think so. The second paragraph says '..combined to indicate 
the *intended* meaning...', (my emphasis),  which is fine. If we read 
the first sentence as referring to *intended* meanings rather than 
meanings (which I suspect is what was, er, intended) then this is all 
a perfectly reasonable account of what one would expect rdfs:comment 
to mean. Intended meanings and actual meanings do not, of course, 
always correspond exactly to one another.

>Hmmm.  Let me think about this. ...
>
>I, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, an employee of Lucent Technologies, Inc., a
>member of the W3C, do believe that the RDF Vocabulary Description Language
>1.0: RDF Schema candidate recommendation is dangerously complicated.  I
>will instruct Lucent Technologies, Inc., to vote against the acceptance of
>any proposal that includes language similar to the language for
>rdfs:comment given above.

I would endorse that, to be sure. It would be crazy to accept that 
wording with the interpretation you are putting on it.

Pat


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes

Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 12:40:36 UTC