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

I was too quick to second DanC's proposal.

The linkage that was clear to Pat between the weasle-words and dark triples,
was also clear to me.

For Dan's sake here is the explanation.

A dark triple is just another name for an unasserted triple. In the Model
Theory such a possibility has always been present; but since no mechanism
(syntactic or otherwise) for creating a dark triple has ever been present in
RDF the Model Theory section has been there for future extension. Since
WebOnt has formally asked for dark triples, it would be an odd response to
remove them.

WebOnt has had difficulty in clarifying WebOnt's need for dark triples.
Currently the two groups are attempting to clarify what problem we are
trying to solve, and whether dark triples actually does solve it, and
whether dark triples is the consensus solution.

My view is that we either should be serious about dark triples, in which
case there should be a mechanism for creating them; they should be in the
MT; and webont should use them for layering; or we should leave them out.
The latter is just like all the other nice to have features that we might
like in RDF2 and might be useful for something or other and that we have
left out of our clarification of M&S.

Thus I guess that the right order to go in is:
1: webont to clarify its needs sufficiently for informed consensus
2: consensus to be reached about using dark triples or not in webont
3: RDFCore following that consensus and either extending or deleting our
current treatment of dark triples

Double or quits?

Jeremy


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Dan Connolly
> Sent: 19 April 2002 03:46
> To: Pat Hayes
> Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: "asserted triple" weasle-words must go [was: best way to
> write triples?]
>
>
> 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"
>   --
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0096.html
>
> 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 Friday, 19 April 2002 06:54:21 UTC