- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:04:45 -0500
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 01:34:02AM -0500, Bijan Parsia wrote: > Well, if I were writing a tutorial on iCal, I'd prolly publish the > examples on the web with type text/calendar. > > Have I violated RDF 2445? (watch those acronyms! 8-) No, you haven't violated it. > Could you point to the language that shows > this? > > (I'm being perfectly serious about this. Just because people *normally* > mean to assert, e.g., their calendar by putting it on the web, and > other people normally (and correctly) take them as asserting it, > doesn't mean that the format mandated that assertion. And might not do > so for very good reasons!) > > >how that would be different > >semantically to a text/calendar document, and how that difference would > >reveal itself in the messages. > > I don't believe it does. I think it's application specific. You have a point. I'm wondering if I had the wrong idea about what folks meant by "assert". I was assuming that in order to have the equivalent of a text/calendar document, you'd need the graph plus a statement that the graph was asserted. But what I hear you and Dan saying is that the equivalent is just the graph, and that assertion is something richer. I can buy that, and it makes me happy because it means that all application/rdf+xml documents are mark:asserted. This would mean that reification, parseType="literal", and using text/plain or application/xml, are all mechanisms that avoid making mark:assertions simply by not yielding triples from some RDF/XML. Right? So, is what is meant here by "unassert" intended to obliterate a mark:asserted triple so that the result is, in effect, that the triple was never extracted? If so, I might have some more self-description issues. 8-) BTW, does it seem that mark:assertion is roughly equivalent to what some would call a "speech act" (assuming there's a consistent definition for it)? P.S. no apology required regarding the earlier message. I apparently took it in the intended manner. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2004 13:10:25 UTC