- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:31:03 +0000
- 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 >example, 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. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2003 17:48:48 UTC