- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 18:54:47 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>At 10:12 AM 6/25/02 -0500, pat hayes wrote: >>I do not think that any part of the final spec should express as >>normative any aspect of RDF meaning which is not reflected in the >>model theory. To do so makes the model theory worthless. > >Leaving aside the issue of what is "normative", do you feel it is >inappropriate to make statements about the *intended* meaning of RDF >vocabulary that cannot be expressed by purely logical means? Well, maybe we have to do this, but I sure would like it to be kept to a minimum. Its OK to have some stuff along the lines Tim wants talking about the social meaning, but lets keep anything to do with what might be called mechanical meaning (eg what a bag is) either in the MT or not anywhere. Im quite willing to tweak the MT to fit anything that makes sense, but I really think that we shouldn't put out a spec that says on the one hand that the MT is the semantics, but also that parts of the language have a different meaning that is only described in M&S-style prose. 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 Tuesday, 25 June 2002 19:54:50 UTC