Re: "meaningless terms" verbage for Primer

Patrick Stickler wrote:

> 
> [Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "ext Jan Grant" <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
> To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
> Cc: "fmanola" <fmanola@mitre.org>; "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> Sent: 10 December, 2002 12:38
> Subject: Re: "meaningless terms" verbage for Primer
> 
> 
> 
>>On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If there is no machine interpretable interpretation, then IMO
>>>there is no interpretation whatsoever. Eh?
>>>
>>This seems to be a persuasive argument for dropping language tags.
>>
> 
> I don't follow. Though the language tags do not affect the
> denotation of typed literals, they have consistent and unambiguous
> interpretation by machines (even if that interpretation is
> disjuct from the datatyping interpretation of the typed literal.
> 
> On the other hand, if some term has no consistent machine
> interpretation, in any way, at any level, then it is useless
> as part of a solution for the global interchange of knowledge
> for which RDF is supposed to serve as a foundational component.
> 
> No?
> 



"Consistent machine interpretation" sure.  But it seems to me you're 
going beyond that, to a requirement for a machine-interpretable 
definition as the basis for all this consistent machine interpretation. 
    As I said in an earlier message, that's something we want to move 
toward, but I don't think we can throw out the older approaches quite 
yet, as problematic as they may be (how do people write TCP/IP software, 
for example?)

--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 Tuesday, 10 December 2002 12:04:51 UTC