- 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>
I think this is a significant improvement. Jeremy (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