- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:58:34 -0500
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
While re-doing the MT it occurred to me that several scattered remarks in various places might usefully be put in one place, and the result would have the desirable side-effect of removing the 'weasel-wording' stuff about unasserted triples (and all reference to unasserted triples from the formal MT tables, appendices, etc.). The resulting paragraph would read approximately as follows. Comments solicited, particularly from anyone who has any strong objections to the document saying something like this: ----- "The model theory assumes that the assertion made by an RDF graph consists of the claim that the triples in the graph are true. In practice, this assumption may need be modified somewhat. For example, the use of a uriref in an RDF graph may be taken as assuming that some other RDF document which is assumed to be the 'definition' of the meaning of that term is also assented to by the first graph. In this case, the MT should be understood as applying to all the triples in both graphs, ie to the merge of the graph with the defining graph (or graphs). Other applications may wish to consider some of the triples in a graph, eg those associated with a certain reserved namespace, as not being asserted (a status sometimes called a 'dark' triple), in which case the MT should be understood as defining the intended meaning only of the triples which are intended to be asserted. In other words, the MT should be applied as a meaning specification to the triples that are considered to be asserted by the graph. In the absence of some external criterion for adding or removing triples from consideration, the basic RDF assumption is that publishing an RDF document amounts to asserting precisely the triples that occur in the graph defined by the document." ----- This would be the only mention of 'unasserted' triples in the document, and the whole issue of what counts as an unasserted or dark triple would be relegated to some other domain of consideration, which might be called the operational deployment of RDF in some larger context. Anyway it would not be in the MT itself. OK ?? Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 17:58:38 UTC