W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > January 2003

Re: Comments on informal meaning of the RDFS vocabulary

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:31:03 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

At 08:42 AM 1/29/03 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>Well, if one really believed RDF Schema, then the model-theoretic behaviour
>of RDF should abide by whatever is said in rdfs:comment value.  For

This is not close to a formal response, just a heads-up for the group...

With some of the day-to-day rush to complete being done, I have been 
thinking about this problem, and had already come to the conclusion that 
this aspect of the Concepts document needs re-writing.  Not to change the 
intent of the working group, but to state it more clearly.

I think Peter's comment above has crystalized the confusion, and it is this 
area that must be better explained.  I also agree that the example given 
(in Concepts) is not helpful, as it obscures the essential point with other 
(debatable) points.

So, I think that:
- we need to clearly distinguish between model theoretic entailments and 
other meanings in RDF
- to clearly state that RDF reasoners are not expected to analyze 
non-model-theoretic truths
- that the non-model-theoretic truths are also important.

 From a more formal perspective, I am thinking that the non-model-theoretic 
truths have a status more like atomic propositions. (?)

I think the other difficulty here, as evidenced by aspects of the 
datatyping discussions, is that RDF must presume the existence of some 
mechanisms that are currently not defined, and further are never likely to 
be defined by the RDF specifications.  In this respect, the RDF 
specification is not a complete application specification.


Graham Klyne
Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2003 17:48:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:20 UTC