- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 00:55:25 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- 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. OK, but this is a delicate line. If there really is some aspect of meaning that is intended and can be specified clearly, then we ought to try to get it into the MT. I am willing to work on that. > 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. Amen to that. >The group can then decide (a) if the text is correct, (b) if it's >useful, and (c) where, if anywhere, it belongs. OK. 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 Friday, 28 June 2002 01:55:24 UTC