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

Re: Social meaning discussion 6th March

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 23:45:56 -0700
Message-Id: <p05111b02ba8755872099@[]>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>I am concerned that you have thrown out the baby with the bathwater.
>And still left some bathwater. ;-)
>Our views do seem rather different
>What is required, and easy, is to say what an RDF document means.

Well, doesn't the MT do this already?

>What is not required and a bad idea is to explain how to use it.
>1. The meaning of an RDF document is that of the statements.
>2. The meaning of the statement is defined by the definition

?What is a definition?

>of the predicate, as applying to the subject and object identified by

?How do the subject and object identify things?

Neither of these are easy questions to answer and neither of them has 
an answer in the current spec.

>  the
>  definition of the subject and object terms.
>That then hands off to the relevant specs the right and the duty to
>define their bit.
>sans chapeau.
>Brian McBride wrote:
>>Sans chapeau:
>>My bath time this morning was spent thinking about social meaning. 
>>I came to the conclusion that 'meaning' is a difficult and slippery 
>>a concept that we should try to stay away from, sticking to things 
>>that are more concrete.  We should leave talk about 'meaning' to 
>>the philosophers.
>There we differ.  For me, the meaning of a bit-field or a docuemnt or a packet
>or a message is what specs are for.

Where does any spec for packets, mime type, etc., ever refer to 
meaning? The very idea of  of 'bit' is rooted in a meaning-free 
notion of 'information', for example.

>>Perhaps we can get all we need by describing intended use.
>That is where you start getting into questionable stuff, necessarily
>slanting the use of RDF some way.
>If  my:car :color :blue means that my car is colored blue, that
>is what it means, quite independent of context.
>The concept of  something having a given color is
>defined (and only defined) by the definition of color

Bad example, as color terms don't have definitions.

>and my:car only serves to idetify the car

How does a uriref identify a car? (Genuine question, not rhetorical :)


IHMC					(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Sunday, 2 March 2003 01:46:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:21 UTC