- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:09:51 +0100 (BST)
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- cc: ext Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Patrick Stickler wrote: > The RDF > MT does not and cannot *know* that "10"->10. "cannot" is (or denotes) an overly strong term. For what it's worth, I agree with much of what Jeremy's saying (and I'm glad that someone's better able to articulte this than me). RDF/XML might be an interchange format*, but implementations are springing up that use RDF's conceptual model (or an implementer's best take thereon) in a more-or-less concrete fashion. While I buy Jeremy's point of view over Patrick's, that's not to say that I don't find the latter way of looking at things at least semi-persuasive. Ultimately, we're going to be dealing with representations, not referents, at some stage. The question is whether we make that explicit and how early in the "RDF story" we make that distinction explicit. I see Patrick's point of view as doing this early; and Jeremy's as leaving it as late as possible, because a lot of people can conveniently ignore the symbol/referent distinction and still get useful work done. jan * I used to say, "it's not the syntax that's important, it's the frame of mind". -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/ That which does not kill us goes straight to our thighs.
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2002 09:12:09 UTC