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

On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 08:28, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: MISC: Internet Media Type registration: proposed TAG finding
> Date: 29 May 2002 20:27:11 -0500
> 
> > On Fri, 2002-05-24 at 23:05, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > But according to your rules, any method of providing meaning for this
> > > extension is adequate.
> > 
> > No, only those that are monotonic. i.e. when you specify an extension,
> > you can only throw out models; you can't put any back in.
> > 
> > >  OK, the method that I will use is that it means
> > > what I mean it to mean.  
> > 
> > So long as it's monotonic, then you haven't provided an example
> > that ...
> 
> Suppose we have 
> 
> <ex:John> <ex:loves> <ex:Mary> .
> 
> <_:s1> <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> .
> <_:s1> <rdf:subject> <var:?x> .
> <_:s1> <rdf:predicate> <ex:loves> .
> <_:s1> <rdf:object> <var:?y> .
> 
> <_:s2> <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> .
> <_:s2> <rdf:subject> <var:?a> .
> <_:s2> <rdf:predicate> <var:?b> .
> <_:s2> <rdf:object> <var:?c> .
> 
> <_:s1> <log:implies> <_:s2> .
> 
> The non-RDF part of this document, i.e., the meaning of log:implies as a
> form of logical implication, completely changes the meaning of foo:loves.

No, there are no more models in a theory that include a
specification of log:implies than there are in a theory
that just treats log:implies as a plain RDF predicate.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the meaning of <a term>",
nor "completely changes the meaning of <a term>".

Going back a bit to your message of 23 May 2002 20:14:13 -0400,
you said:

PFPS> so the partial understanding may not be related to the ``real''
PFPS> meaning in any worthwhile fashion.

to which I replied, 23 May 2002 22:08:16 -0500:

DC> it's monotonic, in that the more you understand, the fewer
DC> interpretations are models. You can't rule out models by
DC> failing to understand something.

The example above is not a counterexample of this claim
that partial understanding is monotonic.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 10:05:47 UTC