- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 17:52:49 -0500
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>We are talking about rdf:Alt here: > >At 16:23 13/02/2002 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: >>>At 09:38 11/02/2002 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote: >>>[...] >>>>Oh well, sure, if we ignore the semantics then we can do >>>>anything. The problem with Alt is that if you follow the, er, >>>>hint, then your conclusions actually *contradict* valid RDF >>>>conclusions, ie in this sense Alt is nonmonotonic. >>> >>>Are you suggesting that we pull it entirely? >> >>Yes. >> >>>That will break anything that's used it. >> >>Right. Well, it will make it nonconformant, at any rate. >> >>>Saying its meaningless, is wimpier, but safer. >> >>Well, its not clear that it is safer in the long run. After all, >>the actual CODE will still work, right? But we will be clear that >>it isn't conformant. Lack of that clarity is itself dangerous, I >>would suggest. > >It seems clear to me. Experiemental explanatory text: > >[[ > >A resource of type rdf:Alt is an ordered collection. A collection >may be given the type rdf:Alt, as opposed to rdf:Bag or rdf:Seq, as >a hint to the reader that typical processing by an application will >be to select one member of the collection for processing. For >example, a schema designer might use rdf:Alt to represent the >collection of mirror sites from which a file may be downloaded. In >all respects, other than this hint, a resource of type rdf:Alt is >just like an rdf:Seq. > >]] I'm happy with that. Final sentence might be rephrased along the lines: RDF however supports no formal entailments that reflect such hints, and considers rdf:Alt to be simply a class of ordered containers. 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, 14 February 2002 17:52:49 UTC