- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 15:54:43 +0100
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Jeremy: > Premise: > <eg:doc1> <dc:creator> <urn:id:1> . > <eg:doc2> <dc:creator> <urn:id:1> . > Conclusion: > <eg:doc1> <dc:creator> _:blank . > <eg:doc2> <dc:creator> _:blank . > Jeremy: > Premise: > <eg:doc1> <dc:creator> "John Smith" . > <eg:doc2> <dc:creator> "John Smith" . > Conclusion: > <eg:doc1> <dc:creator> _:blank . > <eg:doc2> <dc:creator> _:blank . DanC: > The way I see it, dc:creator relates a work to > either its creator or a name for its creator. > So the conclusion just says that the two works > have either the same creator or have creators with > the same name. I think we are agreeing that the model theory is not giving a useful entailment here. Since the conclusion is the same in either case, the interesting first case has become indistinguishable from the less interesting second case. I worry that this makes the MT irrelevant to the DC community, until and unless they deprecate the string-literal usage. If DC ignore the model theory, and WebOnt have darkness to ignore the parts of the model theory they don't like, then I am really not sure why we are bothering to make the model theory normative. Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 16 May 2002 10:55:03 UTC