- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:52:55 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- CC: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Graham-- I like your proposed extension. I think a similar remark (put somewhat more casually), could be helpful in the Primer as well. --Frank Graham Klyne wrote: > > [Switching thread to RDF-core] > > At 07:42 PM 2/11/03 -0500, Frank Manola wrote: > >> pat hayes wrote: >> >>>> I know this thread has died down, but I'd like to get some >>>> clarification >>>> on exactly what needs fixing in the Primer. The Primer doesn't say (I >>>> don't know how to interpret "indicate") "that RDF can be used to let >>>> anyone 'say anything they want about existing resources' ". What the >>>> Primer says, following some examples, is "These examples also >>>> illustrate >>>> one of the basic architectural principles of the Web, which is that >>>> anyone should be able say anything they want about existing resources >>>> [BERNERS-LEE98]." That seems like a reasonable statement under the >>>> circumstances (part of the circumstances being that the Primer is >>>> clearly not describing a rule that is to be applied by an RDF/XML >>>> parser). Are there problems with the actual statement in the Primer? >>>> >>>> --Frank >>> >>> I think the problem might be with any form of words like "able say >>> anything they want". In one way of understanding these words, they >>> mean something like, "not prohibited from saying anything they feel >>> like saying using the formalism, on any topic they choose", which of >>> course is so harmless as an observation that it hardly seems worth >>> saying. But in another way of understanding those words is "enabled >>> by the formalism to have the ability to express any proposition" >>> which is an absurd claim. I think the words were meant in something >>> close to the first sense, but are being read in something close to >>> the second sense. >>> Pat >> > > Yes, but there's something in the *goals* of RDF that aims to be > universal, but that goal is not completely achieved, or even possible, > technically. "say anything about anything" is an aspirational statement. > >> I think the main problem is that a comment in the Primer about an >> *example* is being used to derive a comment *not* in the Primer about >> the power of *the formalism used in the example* (RDF/XML), and then >> issues are being raised about the *derived* comment. I suppose such a >> derivation can be made, but I can't see very many readers of the >> Primer actually making it, and they would be wrong if they did. I >> certainly can't imagine very many readers of the Primer reading that >> statement, and then complaining that they were unable to use rdf:ID as >> a predicate (for example). >> >> Issues directed at the actual text in the Primer would be things like: >> >> 1. Anyone being able to say anything they want about existing >> resources isn't a basic architectural principle of the Web. If that's >> an issue, I refer you to [BERNERS-LEE98], which says "The Web works >> though anyone being (technically) allowed to say anything about >> anything." I suppose it could be argued that the Primer doesn't >> characterize that properly, or use the exact quotation, but the >> quotation seems to go even further than the Primer does, if you >> interpret it as applying to what RDF allows, rather than what the Web >> is trying to do, since it doesn't restrict itself to saying things >> about "resources". > > > I like that Berners-Lee quote, because I think it is unarguable when > applied to ordinary web pages. > > Here's an attempt to build upon that: > [[ > The Web works through anyone being (technically) allowed to say anything > about anything. RDF is a limited formalism, but follows this ideal by > allowing expression of arbitrary propositions about any subject matter, > within the limitations of its formalism. > ]] > > I think it behoves Concepts to be a bit more precise about the extent of > that formalism; Pat used some words recently (something like "binary > propositional subset of EC logic") that I'd like to steal. > > #g > -- > >> 2. The examples provided don't illustrate that principle of the Web. >> I think that they do, even though they don't do so exhaustively. >> >> >> --Frank >> >> >>> >>>> "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> >>>>> Subject: Re: Can RDF say anything about anything? >>>>> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 06:51:29 +0000 >>>>> >>>>> > At 09:48 30/01/2003 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > >Can RDF say anything about anything? >>>>> > > >>>>> > >The RDF documents are contradictory on this point. The Primer >>>>> indicates >>>>> > >that RDF can be used to let anyone ``say anything they want >>>>> about existing >>>>> > >resources'' with no exception for the resources used by RDF. >>>>> [Section >>>>> > > 3.2] Concepts says >>>>> > >that ``RDF is an open-world framework that allows anyone to >>>>> make simple >>>>> > >assertions about anything''. [Section 2.2.6, and elsewhere] >>>>> > > However, Concepts also says that ``Certain >>>>> > >URIs are reserved for use by RDF, and may not be used for any >>>>> purpose not >>>>> > >sanctioned the RDF specifications.'' [Section 3.7] >>>>> > > >>>>> > >What is the situation here? >>>>> > >>>>> > Peter, >>>>> > >>>>> > As this comment affects several documents, I'll respond. >>>>> > >>>>> > As a general point, it is helpful if you can provide links to >>>>> the sections >>>>> > of documents where you have a problem with the text, or at the >>>>> least >>>>> > section numbers. >>>>> >>>>> Isn't that what the Search/Find capabilities of browsers are for? >>>>> I would >>>>> expect that an interested reader would want to know where else >>>>> Concepts >>>>> talks about being able to say anything about anything. I've added >>>>> section >>>>> numbers to my comment above. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> snip >>>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > > > ------------------- > Graham Klyne > <GK@NineByNine.org> > -- 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, 12 February 2003 08:33:47 UTC