- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:50:18 +0100 (BST)
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 23 Aug 2002, Dan Connolly wrote: > > On Thu, 2002-08-22 at 10:41, bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com wrote: > [...] > > > > 13: Meaning of rdf:type and relationship between RDF and RDFS > > (a) must any RDF processor > > what's an 'RDF processor'? Anything that deals with RDF? > We're defining a language, not a software module, right? > > The first occurence of the term in > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/ > is in the discussion of issues. It's not used anywhere > in the spec. (Whew!) > > It doesn't occur at all in > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/ > > (whew!) > > > understand > > What does 'understand' mean? After 2 years on a WG, I'm no longer sure :-) I agree in principle that informal language and anthropomorphisation of the global pulsating hyperbrain or any part thereof should be avoided in specs. > > the object of an rdf:type property as being an rdfs:Class (and hence > > understand what an rdfs:Class is)? > > > > (b) must an RDF processor that understands what an rdfs:Class is also > > understand the rest of the RDFS vocabulary? "understand" here is a shorthand notion to express, "process (by which I mean 'draw entailments from according to', etc.) the rdfs:Class according to the spec which describes it, along with any and all other processing requirements given in that document". I think in informal debate, it's a perfectly usable term. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk (ECHOY GRUNTING) (EERIE WHISPERS) aren't subtitles great?
Received on Friday, 23 August 2002 09:51:33 UTC