- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 13:30:03 +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: [...] >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? Maybe "object" is too strong a term. I was reacting to: [[ 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. ]] in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0272.html I searched for the 'without loss of meaning'. > 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. Well, this issue is about the phrase in the primer. We may find others with concepts. Brian
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2003 08:29:07 UTC