- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 18:07:26 +0000
- To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
At 10:52 18/02/2003 -0500, Frank Manola wrote: >Brian-- > >A few interspersed comments below. Also, the "Say anything quote" link to >the original message on the Issues page is broken. Link fixed: emacs glitch. I'll get to the other comments tomorrow. Brian >--Frank > >Brian McBride wrote: > >>At 11:14 17/02/2003 -0500, Frank Manola wrote: >> >>>Peter-- >>> >>>It seems to me this issue is similar to the one about meaning, in the >>>sense that, since it has general applicability, it needs treatment >>>beyond the Primer. Can you identify the other documents to which you >>>believe this applies as well? >>> >>>Brian, can we have an issue number for this, please? >> >>First of all can I suggest an editorial change removing "without loss of >>meaning" in >>[[ >>RDF provides a common framework for expressing this information so it can >>be exchanged between applications without loss of meaning. >>]] >>in the primer abstract and introduction. I think this is a claim that >>Peter objected to and it seems it could be dropped without harm. >>We need to be clear about what the issue is that we are identifying. > > >I agree we need to be clear about this issue, and I'll be happy to remove >that phrase. However, as further clarification, could you (Brian) or >Peter point me to where Peter has objected to that? My impression was >that Peter had concerns about our documents (not just this place in the >Primer) being very clear as to what the "meaning" actually was (that is, >being clear about the meaning that can literally be described by RDF, >versus the "social meaning" or added meaning that people may attach to it, >by convention or otherwise). Given that we're clear about the "meaning" >we're talking about (and maybe we can't be at this point), it would appear >that the "RDF meaning" should be exchangable between applications without >loss, while "social" or "conventional" meanings might very well be lost >(if the receiving application hasn't been programmed with those meanings >independently of what it receives in the RDF). > > >>The issue >> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-15 >>concerns the sentence in the primer: >>[[ >>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]. >>]] >>which Peter states is contradicted by the fact that not all graphs can be >>serialized in RDF/XML. >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0194.html >>Frank has suggested editorial rewording that is not acceptable to Peter. >>This is not an issue of general applicability'. > > >OK: just Primer and Concepts then. > > >>I don't think the WG can do much with general statements such as: >>[[ >>I find this a general problem with the RDF documents. A lofty principle is >>stated, such as ``say anything ...'' or ``expressing information >>... without loss of meaning'', but RDF doesn't even come close to the >>principle. >>]] >>or >>[[ >>If the RDF documents were not liberally sprinkled with this sort of >>overreaching allusions, ... >>]] > > >Agreed. > > >> >> >>>--Frank >>> >>> >>>Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >>> >>>>From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org> >>>>Subject: Re: Can RDF say anything about anything? >>>>Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:27:52 -0500 >>>> >>>>>Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org> >>>>>>Subject: Re: Can RDF say anything about anything? >>>>>>Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:38:07 -0500 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Peter-- >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Thanks for this comment. Regarding the situation you bring up, the >>>>>>>Primer at that point says: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>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]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>[BTW: If nothing else, you've enabled me to spot a missing "to" in the >>>>>>>sentence. Thanks!] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Specifically, the examples illustrate an independent party commenting on >>>>>>>a description produced by someone else. That (roughly) "anyone should >>>>>>>be able to say anything about anything" is being cited as an >>>>>>>architectural principle of the Web illustrated by the examples, not as a >>>>>>>capability of RDF (and certainly not without exceptions). I frankly >>>>>>>find it hard to see anyone reading this, and being led to believe that >>>>>>>they can then make RDF statements that violate RDF/XML (e.g., using >>>>>>>rdf:ID as a predicate was one of the examples that came up in your >>>>>>>interaction with Brian). Of course, being able to "say anything about >>>>>>>anything" provides the ability to state lies and nonsense (e.g., you >>>>>>>could say rdf:ID rdf:type ex:MooCow), but we can't really prevent >>>>>>>that. Do you see a particular clarification that would help, such as a caveat >>>>>>>here that there are technical limits to RDF's ability to express things? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>--Frank >>>>>>Either RDF is able to ``say anything [...] about existing >>>>>>resources'', in which case the sentence is germane, or it isn't, in which >>>>>>case the sentence is irrelevant or misleading. If RDF doesn't >>>>>>satisfy the >>>>>>principle then there is no reason to keep the allusion. >>>>>> >>>>>>I find this a general problem with the RDF documents. A lofty >>>>>>principle is >>>>>>stated, such as ``say anything ...'' or ``expressing information >>>>>>... without loss of meaning'', but RDF doesn't even come close to the >>>>>>principle. >>>>> >>>>>Peter-- >>>>> >>>>>I understand your concern, but at the same time what you suggest ("If >>>>>RDF doesn't satisfy the principle then there is no reason to keep the >>>>>allusion") seems awfully black and white. >>>> >>>>I had thought that specifications, and the Primer is part of the RDF >>>>specification, if only an informative one, were about ``black and white''. >>>>If someone wants to write a paper on RDF, then it might be reasonable to >>>>make these sorts of allusions, but I just don't see their place in an >>>>official document on RDF. >>>> >>>>>It seems to me reasonable to be able to state the principle, even when >>>>>we can't totally achieve it (and of course, RDF is not alone in not >>>>>coming close to this principle in reality). I agree, though, that an >>>>>*uncaveated* statement of this principle could be misleading. What >>>>>about adding the caveat that I mentioned, that there that there are >>>>>technical limits to RDF's ability to express things? >>>>> >>>>>--Frank >>>> >>>>If the RDF documents were not liberally sprinkled with this sort of >>>>overreaching allusions, then I might be satisfied with this approach. >>>>However, fixing one instance of this general problem is not going to >>>>eliminate the impression that RDF is much more than it actually is. >>>>peter >>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>>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 > > >-- >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 Tuesday, 18 February 2003 13:06:21 UTC