- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:26:03 -0400 (EDT)
- To: sandro@w3.org
- Cc: bparsia@isr.umd.edu, public-sw-meaning@w3.org
From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> Subject: Re: in defense of standards Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:07:50 -0400 [...] > What kind of statement do you imagine we might produce? Would it talk > about people and software agents and what they may/should/must do? > > -- sandro Well, since you ask, I imagine that we could produce a three-part statement: 1/ The SW meaning of a set of SW documents in a SW language is completely determined from the normative specification of the SW language and the contents of these SW documents. 2/ The meaning of a set of SW documents does not necessarily include any of the meaning of any other document, except for those SW documents whose meaning is explicitly required to be a part of the meaning of the SW documents by the normative specification of the SW language and the contents of these SW documents. 3/ Applications are free to augment this meaning, perhaps by including the meaning of other SW documents, but are prohibited from indicating that this augmented meaning is part of the meaning that comes from the SW language. So, as far as RDF is concerned, the meaning of a set of SW documents in RDF/XML is determined solely from the RDF graph that results from the parsing of these documents and is not dependent on the contents of any other document. OWL extends this to bring in the meaning of imported documents. peter
Received on Friday, 10 October 2003 11:30:40 UTC