- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 17:43:45 -0500 (EST)
- To: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
- cc: <fmanola@mitre.org>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Graham Klyne wrote:
> Putting it in the MT is a possibility, but it's not really a semantic
> comment, as such, but a social comment ("RDF is intended to achieve
> _this_"). Having formal semantics is (part of) how we achieve the goal in
> question.
The Model Theory document seems the best home for it, to me, although this
isn't part of the MT as such. It isn't too late to rename that document,
though I don't want to start a thread on that possibility right now. 'RDF
Fomalisation' or somesuch maybe.
I don't see this topic as a social comment, although there is an
aspirational aspect. The point is that we believe RDF documents make
claims about the world, that we believe it makes sense to speak of an RDF
document being 'true' or 'false'. This then connects us with machinery
presented in the MT document, which tells us about truth-preserving
operations on RDF data.
(Whether there any cases where a syntatically wellformed RDF/XML document
is neither true nor false, but (something like) meaningless may be worth
some attention (in Primer, MT?). Bogus URIs, for example. Probably a
rathole, forget I mentioned it.)
Dan
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2002 17:44:49 UTC