- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 08:01:28 -0400
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
I think the monotonicity issue is an important one, but I also think we need to be careful about drawing conclusions about it from these "real world" applications (like RDF statements having weight in court). I believe the full statement of this requirement is along the lines that RDF statements should have the same sort of weight in court as natural language ones, e.g., those that might be made in ads or newspaper articles. In other words, we're not trying to impose more of a requirement on RDF than we impose on other kinds of statements. At the same time, we need to cater to omputer reasoners, rather than requiring the capabilities of human reasoners. Brian McBride wrote: > > 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 > -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2002 07:46:34 UTC