- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 18:12:41 -0500
- To: <fmanola@mitre.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org> wrote: > I don't think it's that simple. It seems to me that a sender may be > transmitting RDF (i.e., this media type) for all sorts of reasons, only > one of which is that the sender asserts the RDF content. Even for > simple RDF content (ignoring reification, and other complications), > couldn't the sender be forwarding RDF asserted by someone else? Or > including it as an attachment to an email message whose text is "the > attached is baloney"? The interpretation of RDF statements as > assertions (and exactly who or what is doing the asserting) is certainly > something that needs to be cleaned up, but it seems to me that a revised > RDF M&S specification, rather than the media type definition, is > probably the place to do it. We discussed this to some extent at the face-to-face. In cases such as these I think that it's important for the RDF to be reified. Humans can understand that the statement "this is baloney" invalidates the rest of the message, but machines don't. In RDF, if you say something, you say it. It's as simple as that. If you don't mean to say it, then reify it. -- [ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2001 19:12:53 UTC