- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:09:08 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, bparsia@isr.umd.edu, public-sw-meaning@w3.org
On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 10:26, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > 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. I don't expect that architecture to produce a useful system. It doesn't encourage Joe Baseball Card Trader to publish his baseball card ontology. I hope to elaborate separately. > 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 -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 10 October 2003 14:14:18 UTC