- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 20:48:09 -0500
- 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]: > snip > 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]: > snip > 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. Pat-- What would you like the Primer to say about rdf:value? --Frank -- 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