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

From: patrick hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Subject: Re: MISC: Internet Media Type registration: proposed TAG finding
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 11:40:44 -0500

> >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:

[...]

> >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

I agree that it is crazy.  

However, a number of people that have been associated with RDF much longer
than you or I have appear to be taking precisely this interpretation, or
one even more extreme.  Therefore, the wording about rdfs:comment is
*dangerous*, as it appears to be being used to justify crazy statements
about RDF and RDFS.

peter

Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 12:55:30 UTC