Re: Hammer vs. tweezers

>jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com wrote:
>[...]
> > > The set of statements that are subject
> > > of semantic interpretation can be selected in an unspecified,
> > > application-specific way.
> >
> > I'm trying to understand what you mean and I'm struggling
> > with that last sentence. No matter how many times I
> > read it, I'm not understanding it.
> > It's in particular that
> >   set of statements
> >   subject
> >   semantic interpretation
> >   unspecified selection
> > So what does that last sentence actually mean?
>
>Let me give an example. We expect to find RDF statements on many
>webpages and in many online data sources. Specific applications
>typically consider only a subset of all available data (e.g. certain
>domain, certain set of trusted servers, certain vocabularies, etc.) I
>was trying to convey the idea that meaningful semantics exists only for
>such limited datasets, whose boundaries are determined in a particular
>application context. It probably would be inappropriate to refer to the
>set of all webpages on public servers when say defining the semantics of
>rdf:type.

You guys at db.stanford really do all think alike, don't you? :-)

While I agree with your overall theme here, it seems to go beyond the 
remit of RDFcore, as it requires a basic change to the language.

However, what you say about semantics isnt exactly right. After all, 
one *can* give a model theory for FOL, which is about as global in 
scope as one could imagine (way larger than the mere Web, for 
example.)

Pat

---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes

Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2001 18:33:01 UTC