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

Re: Semantics of rdf:value

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 20:48:09 -0500
Message-ID: <3DF001D9.2010800@mitre.org>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, danbri@w3.org

pat hayes wrote [to Brian]:

> OK, fine. But then I have a new issue, which applies to rdf:value but 
> also more generally.
> In cases where the WG has resolved that the model theory provides no 
> semantics for a construct in the RDF namespace, I suggest that none of 
> our documents, including the Primer, should be written in a way that 
> suggests that the construct does have an intended meaning that could 
> support any valid inferences. That is, we should be consistent about 
> meaning: when things have no meaning but are being kept for essentially 
> political reasons, we should say that clearly.

pat hayes wrote [to DanBri]:
 > Then they should not be in the language. They can be in user ontologies,
 > of course, but then its up to said user to describe them to their own
 > satisfaction. Seems to me that we have a responsibility to give clear
 > specifications for the meanings of the vocabulary we provide, or else to
 > say clearly that they have no meaning. I'm quite happy to say that
 > rdf:value has no meaning; but then I don't want the primer to explain
 > this nonexistent meaning in intuitive terms.


What would you like the Primer to say about rdf:value?


Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 20:31:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:19 UTC