- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:29:29 +0100
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 06:54 PM 6/25/02 -0500, pat hayes wrote: >>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. Fair enough -- indeed I broadly agree. I suggest that Jeremy and I draft some words in the new RDF document, then --with real text on the table-- we coordinate on agreeing what is needed and transplanting it to its rightful home. This is not about describing a *different* meaning, but about adding prose to capture additional refinements of *intended* meaning that cannot be expressed in the formalism available. Without doubt, the formal semantics is king, and I agree that the various aspects of meaning should ideally be in the same document. Jeremy in particular has done a very useful job of reviewing the existing specs and issues and identifying possible gaps in the coverage. If the new document becomes a staging post for new text before it finds its way into some more appropriate document, then I think that's a Good Thing. For myself, I'm very keen to push ahead and prepare text because I believe that's more productive than talking about issues. The group can then decide (a) if the text is correct, (b) if it's useful, and (c) where, if anywhere, it belongs. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2002 04:15:45 UTC