- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:41:17 -0500
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
* Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> [2012-11-12 10:20-0500] > On 11/12/2012 02:58 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: > >On Nov 8, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > > > >>What's the relevance of the distinction between “graphs containing ill-typed literals” and “inconsistent graphs” in the Semantics? > >The relevance is that it is quite possible to say sensible (and therefore consistent) things about ill-typed literals, such as that they are ill-typed. > > > >>The text stresses that the presence of an ill-typed literals does not constitute an inconsistency. > >> > >>But why does the distinction matter? > >I am not sure what you mean by "the distinction" here. Why would you expect that an ill-typed literal would produce an inconsistency? Why would the presence of an ill-typed literal make a triple false? > > > >>Is there any reason anybody needs to know about this distinction who isn't interested in the arcana of the model theory? > >I'm not sure what you consider to be "arcana". Someone who cannot follow the model theory probably shouldn't be using RDF. > > Pat, I think a lot of people should be using RDF who are not > interested in the model theory. It's a bit like people buys nails > at the hardware store without knowing all the materials > characteristics of the metal used. (Whether they *can* understand > the materials science is irrelevant, of course.) > > -- Sandro The problem burgeoning popularity of RDF is all these damned dilettantes. Clearly we need to raise the bar a bit. > >> From the perspective of someone who authors RDF data, or works with RDF data, they both seem like belonging to the same class of problem, and I'm a bit at a loss as to how to explain the difference. > >To me they seem quite obviously different, so apparently I am not following your intuition here. FWIW, one should *not* think of inconsistency as a kind of error condition. (Maybe the semantics text should spend a little time explaining this point.) > > > >>(I know how both terms are defined and what conditions exactly cause them; the question is about why the spec insists that ill-typed literals do not cause a graph to be inconsistent.) > >My question, in reply, would be to ask why anyone would think it would. > > > >Pat > > > >>Best, > >>Richard > >> > >------------------------------------------------------------ > >IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 > >40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office > >Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax > >FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile > >phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- -ericP
Received on Monday, 12 November 2012 15:46:11 UTC