- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:54:31 +0200
- To: fmanola@mitre.org
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> 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). well, the best I can remember are PatH's words [[ More generally, however, I would suggest that we take care to keep functionally distinct aspects of the language as distinct as possible, and that referring to/pointing to/whatever some ontology ought to one thing, and any speech act (assenting, asserting, denying, questioning, expressing doubt about, saying it is connected to foo, saying it entails foo....) involving it should be something else. It would be OK to have a default case where if you just 'say' it without any further comment then that is taken to be an assertion (assention?), but it ought to be *very* easy to override that assumption. And I think it would be best to have an explicit 'we include this here' marker, like DAML's 'import'. ]] -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jan/0195.html so we could do much more than just asserting RDF triples -- Jos
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 10:55:27 UTC