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

RE: suggested wording for removing weasels from MT

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 12:36:56 +0100
To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDKENGCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

I think this is a significant improvement.


(I also hope that resolving DT vis-a-vis webont will clarify whether this
text is a desireable hook or not; and if not I tend to agree with Dan about
not putting it).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Pat Hayes
> Sent: 22 April 2002 22:59
> To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: suggested wording for removing weasels from MT
> 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 Thursday, 25 April 2002 07:37:07 UTC

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