W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > January to February 1999

Re: FWD: OBJS comments on the PIDL submission

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 10:31:26 -0500
Message-Id: <199902161528.KAA783203@relay.interim.iamworld.net>
To: www-talk@w3.org
Cc: Craig Thompson <thompson@objs.com>, Venu Vasudevan <venu@objs.com>, koike@ccm.cl.nec.co.jp, kamba@ccm.cl.nec.co.jp, marc@ccm.cl.nec.co.jp, "Rolf H. Nelson" <rnelson@w3.org>
Please appreciate that the goals of the WAI for an accessible-by-construction
Web are heavily dependent on what materializes as the generally used platform
for view management.

At 12:12 PM 2/13/99 -0500, Rolf H. Nelson wrote: 
>
> Venu gave me permission to forward this message publicly. 
> [And Venu had written:]


>
> Below are our comments on the recent PIDL (Personalized Information 
> Description Language) submission to W3C. I can be reached at 
> venu@objs.com for any subsequent discussions or clarifications. 
>
> * Not sure I see the need for a comparison between PIDL and RDF. 
> PIDL is a view specification, RDF is about page semantics. What's 
> the connection? 


What page semantics?  One class of semantics is the binding between a document
type and an ontology wherein live methods which marry appropriately with the
content of the document.  Such as view extraction.  RDF should have the
capability to define the content space and the interaction environment surface
space and appropriate methods of binding between these two spaces.  This
covers
both slicing and subclassing, views and representations, static and dynamic
potentialities of the data in the document.

Consider that documents on the web today are views, which semantically relate
to an ideology richer than what is formalized in current markup; and are also
messages, where there is semantic continuity across a discourse consisting of
multiple message transactions.

One pragma that has been suggested should be considered in the WAI is that the
view results are sent as today, but with a starting point for view
negotiation.  What gets bundled can be a separate performance-driven decision,
so long as the definitions are in place to generate the right robust range of
views, and this service is not unavailable by reason of information left on
the
cutting-room floor.

I need some help understanding RDF.  My rough understanding is that the RDF
model allows for the expression of second-order predicate logic.

Why is this model not appropriate for creating view definitions?  If it is,
why
should view specifications not use this model as their logical base?

Al 
Received on Tuesday, 16 February 1999 10:29:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:24 GMT