Re: need to determine what RDF is

On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 12:53, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
[...]
> > An RDF watermelon is
> >   * a list of absolute URI references
> > 	(usually, they share a prefix, for convenient use
> > 	with XML namespace syntax)
> >   * an agreement that these terms may be used in RDF/xml
> >     syntax
> >   * an agreement that when these terms are used in RDF/xml
> >     syntax, assertion of such a document licenses
> >     all [RDF or RDFS] entailments
> >   * a specification of further constraints on the
> >     meaning of these terms; i.e. more constraints
> >     on which interpretations are models.
> >     This specification may end up licensing
> >     further formal inferences, or it might just
> >     relate the terms to existing conventions and
> >     practices, in such a way that humans are
> >     expected to be able to judge which interpretations
> >     are models, but a machine's understanding
> >     will be incomplete.
> > 
> > RDFS, dublin core, and DAML+OIL look like RDF watermelons
> > to me.
> 
> Why not call the notion a same-syntax extension of RDF?

Very well, then, perhaps I shall.

It seems sorta redundant... these things seem to fit
inside the framework, not extend it. But I'll give
it a try, and see if more folks understand it
this way.

>  That seems to
> cover all the bases, and, moreover, makes it clear that RDFS/OWL/... are
> *extensions* of RDF.
> 
> 
> > > How could the situation be any different?  It seems that you are asking for
> > > W3C to bless any effort (e.g., DAML+OIL or KIF) that has any relationship
> > > to RDF, even if the only relationship is the effort uses URIrefs to
> > > identify its tokens.
> > 
> > Well, yes; that's pretty much what the Resource Description Framework
> > is, to me.
> 
> Well, then I think that you need to embark on a major education effort.

Quite.

>  I
> know that your view is certainly not universal.  I think that your view is
> sufficiently different from the normal interpretation of a standard that it
> would have to be written in big, bold, flashing, red type at the top of
> every part of the RDF specification documents.
> 
> > There are a few things beyond using URIrefs: monotonicity,
> > completeness (but not necessarily soundness) w.r.t.
> > simple entialment, the use of unicode strings (and XML
> > infosets) as literals. And for at least some period of time,
> > a willingness to use RDF/XML syntax for exchange.
> 
> 
> 
> > -- 
> > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> 
> peter
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 14:06:43 UTC