Re: "asserted triple" weasle-words must go [was: best way to write triples?]

Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>>Ah... then about this bit:
>>
>>-------
>>The use of the phrase "asserted triple" in the third condition is a
>>deliberate weasel-worded artifact, intended to allow an RDF graph or
>>document to contain triples which are being used for some
>>non-assertional purpose.
>>-------
>>  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-mt-20020214/
>>
>>I suggest it's time to get rid of the weasle-words.
>>
>>The most straightforward thing to do is to strike that text.
>>That's my preference.
>>
> 
> 
> I second that proposal.
> 
> Dark triples have now wasted a hold load of time and money.


Compared to what?  Reification? Data types? Seems like a dewdrop in the 
Atlantic!  :-)


> 
> They have a cool name; and may strike Pat and Peter as a cool idea.
> 
> But they are not in RDF M&S; they are not necessary; they do not clarify
> M&S; they are not in charter.
> 


I'd like to see some amplification of the "they are not necessary" point 
before we make any decision on this.  The other points may be 
procedurally correct, but may be less important than the "semantics" of 
the issue (if you will).  For example, regarding the fact that they are 
not in M&S, presumably we're allowed to consider the new situations in 
which RDF may need to be used (e.g., supporting WebONT) that have come 
to prominence since M&S went to CR?  Even if we made a decision to drop 
this matter, I'd like to see us say something constructive about the 
issue of unasserted triples for the record (rather than just drop it as 
not being in charter).

 
--Frank


-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875

Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 08:56:44 UTC