W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

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

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 18 Apr 2002 21:46:27 -0500
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1019184388.4817.312.camel@dirk>
On Thu, 2002-04-18 at 19:33, Pat Hayes wrote:
> >The most straightforward thing to do is to strike that text.
> >That's my preference.
> OK, Im getting tired of this debate and also beginning to think that 
> might be the easiest way to go.

huh? which debate? I just made one simple request.

> That will help to drive another nail 
> into RDF's coffin, which might in the long run be the best thing for 
> the world in general in any case.


> And it might an interesting 
> experiment for one WG to simply tell another WG to shove its request

??? What request? Is this somehow related to

 "It was also agreed to ask RDF Core for dark triples"

If so, I don't see how.

> That might at least produce some interesting stuff in the 
> coordination group email archive.


> >Otherwise, let's see some test cases for what it means.
> Well, if you insist, but the MT makes the pretty clear, doesn't it? 

no, not at all.

> Dark triples mean exactly nothing in the MT. They have no RDF 
> entailments. I could make up a test case if you really want one, but 
> it wouldnt be very interesting.

Then why is it being requested?

> >One option is to resurrect the magic-namespace from M&S 1.0.
> >
> >----
> >When an RDF processor encounters an XML element or attribute name that
> >is declared to be from a namespace whose name begins with the string
> >"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax" and the processor does not
> >recognize the semantics of that name then the processor is required to
> >skip (i.e., generate no tuples for) the entire XML element
> No, that would not work.

Well, that's news. JimH said the WebOnt WG didn't need to
suggest a dark triples solution because all the options
under discussion in RDF Core were acceptable.

> The whole point is to have triples but not 
> have them asserted. The point is not to make them vanish, just to 
> have no *semantic* import.

Maybe it's clear to everybody else how that works.
Sorry, I don't get it.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 22:46:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:12 UTC