Re: Outline for new RDF document

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