- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 07:45:52 -0400
- To: "Wagner, G.R." <G.R.Wagner@tm.tue.nl>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-rdf-rules@w3.org
> >> SWRL assigns a different meaning to documents written in RDF/XML than that
> >> provided by the RDF model theory.
> >
> > Which of course means they are not written in RDF/XML, right?
>
> No, they are written in RDF/XML (syntax), but they are not
> RDF documents.
I don't really see the distinction you are making. Labeling something
X when it does not conform to the published specification of X is a
bad practice. There may be exceptions, but it looks to me like it's
either done by mistake or with malice, but never with well-informed,
well-considerd, unselfish motivation. In the SWRL case (having been
in many of the discussions), I'm pretty sure it was just not thought
through carefully enough.
> This is like using the language of classical
> predicate logic, but assigning a non-classical (e.g. intui-
> tionistic) semantics
Somewhat, but anyone doing that and not labeling their use
appropriately for their audience would surely be castigated. In an
academic paper, imagining and discussing a language with the syntax of
RDF/XML but different semantics would be fine; doing so in a document
which offers an industry standard is not.
-- sandro
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2004 07:48:49 UTC