- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 12:00:26 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 11:25 25/09/2002 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:
>Jeremy made some comments about (non-)monotonicity with which I'm not sure
>I agree. But I think the thrust here is worth exploring. To put it bluntly:
>
> Would it be acceptable to abandon the goal of monotonicity for uses of
> untyped literals?
>
>Which I think is along similar lines to what Brian is suggesting here.
Two points:
o We have the issue of rdfms-assertion. The director wants RDF
statements to carry weight in court and I suspect nonmon would seriously
undermine that:
But m'lord, those RDF statements should have been interpreted in the
light of this schema, which clearly removes the assertion that the number
of pornographic images on this page is 0.
o Was it Guha who said at a f2f, that a wise man once told him that
being a little bit non-monotonic was like being a little bit pregnant.
Brian
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2002 07:03:06 UTC