- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 11:58:52 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 07:42 PM 9/4/01 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > I have no axe to grind here: I would be happy to banish containers
> > and reification from RDF, myself. But I would like us to be clear on
> > the matter. If they are part of the language, with an intended
> > meaning, then the model theory - the definitive semantics of the
> > language - should define that meaning as far as possible. If they are
> > not part of the language then let's remove them from the language
> > (and maybe have an explicit status for them as part of a 'library' of
> > handy constructions). If they are part of the language but have no
> > defined meaning, then let us say so, and be ready to smile fixedly at
> > the mockery that would then be our due.
>
>I like the library idea.
Me too. But I'd like to better understand how specific semantics
associated with standard library elements might be formalized (i.e. stated
without room for misinterpretation).
#g
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<http://www.baltimore.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2001 07:06:43 UTC