- From: Bob MacGregor <macgregor@ISI.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:43:33 -0800
- To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, macgreg@ISI.EDU, bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Frank, All of your suggestions sound reasonable to me. I'm satisfied that the issues are being covered. Thanks, Bob At 10:04 AM 2/28/2003 -0500, Frank Manola wrote: >[Brian--see comment about the need for WG agreement at the end; as a >result, perhaps this requires an issue] > >Bob-- > >Thanks for the reply. Once again this has been very helpful. OK, here's >my idea for what needs to be done to the Primer reification section, >following your suggestions: > >1. The reificaton section would have an outline something like this: > >* RDF provides a vocabulary to describe RDF statements (for making >"statements about statements") > >* this is intended to support statements describing the *provenance* of >other statements (e.g., who wrote them, when they were written, and so on). > >* here is how you would use this vocabulary to describe provenance [example]. > >* notice that in order to provide this description, you need to have a >URIref that identifies the actual statement (or graph) you are talking >about. RDF does not provide a built-in way of generating such URIrefs, or >of indicating how URIrefs are to be associated with individual statements >or graphs, any more than it provides a built-in way of generating URIrefs >for the tents we described in Section 3, or of associating URIrefs with >specific tents. As in those examples, the mechanisms for associating >specific URIrefs with specific resources (statements in this case) are >outside of RDF. > >2. At the end of the reification section, I could add a *brief* paragraph >on propositional attitudes going something like this: > >* some of the statements about statements people might want to make are >things like "Lois believes that Superman is strong", or "Phil thinks that >George is a clown". These statements describe what are called >"propositional attitudes"; e.g. in the first example, the attitude Lois >takes (that she believes it) to the proposition that "Superman is strong". > >* it is straightforward to *syntatically* represent such statements using >the reification vocabulary (assuming a URIref has been assigned to the >appropriate statement) using the technique already described [example] > >* However, consistently processing statements involving propositional >attributes is known to be extremely complicated [and involves the >potential for generating apparent contradictions; cite references]. So >anyone using RDF for such purposes needs to be extremely careful, and be >aware of the issues described in the references. > >Does this sound reasonable? If so, I think making these changes involves >more than "editorial discretion", so I'd like Working Group agreement that >these changes are OK. > >--Frank > > > >-- >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 > Robert MacGregor Project Leader USC Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way, Marina del Rey, CA 90292 macgregor@isi.edu Phone: 310/448-8423, Fax: 310/822-6592 Mobile: 310/251-8488
Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 19:43:39 UTC