- From: Bob MacGregor <macgregor@ISI.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:41:46 -0800
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, fmanola@mitre.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Graham, I'm in agreement with all of the points you make below, and they cover all of the issues that I was concerned about, so I'm happy with things as they now stand. Thanks for your response, Bob At 01:29 PM 2/28/2003 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote: >At 05:36 PM 2/27/03 -0800, Bob MacGregor wrote: >>At 10:35 PM 2/27/2003 +0000, Brian McBride wrote: >>>At 13:31 27/02/2003 -0800, Bob MacGregor wrote: >>>>Currently, only you and Pat Hayes have responded (back to me) to the >>>>comments that I posted earlier to RDF-comments, >>> >>>Bob, I hope you don't think that is a bad thing. The editors of each >>>document are handling the comments on their documents. Please don't >>>expect the entire WG to join you in debate. >> >>Having everyone chime in would not be a good thing. I was not suggesting >>that I >>should have had more responses, but I was hoping that to have gotten >>a response about each issue that I raised. Below, I mention the two >>unanwered issues > >Bob, > >I apologize. I did not previously notice that your message included a >comment on the Concepts document, to which I shall try to respond... > > >>>> and those responses did not >>>>include consideration of some of the issues I raised. >>> >>>That is a matter of concern to me. It is our intent to ensure that each >>>issue is properly addressed. Can I assume that any issues that you feel >>>have not been addressed are captured in this message, or are there >>>others you can refer me to? >> >>One issue was the discussion surrounding the example >> "I don't believe that George is a clown" in the Concepts >>and Abstract Syntax document, the larger issue being >>whether or not propositional attitudes are or should be expressible. >>The (non-RDF) nested syntax in the Primer relates to the same issue >>(but Frank has already replied to me about the Primer). > >Reference, Concepts section 4.1: > >http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#section-AssertedForm > >Ouch! That text was not intended to delve into issues of propositional >attitudes, but was merely intended to be an informal example of using a >statement without asserting it. > >RDF does not, of itself, provide mechanisms for expressing propositional >attitudes. I'm not sure that it can within it's current semantic framework. > >As for the issue of indicating asserted and non-asserted forms, the short >answer is that RDF does not define such a mechanism. I think this section >needs to be examined in light of your comments. (I think the reification >constructs can be used by an application for such purposes, but such use >is not defined by RDF.) > >I think your concerns can be expressed thus: > >1. The Concepts document is not clear that RDF does not define a mechanism >for distinguishing asserted and non-asserted forms. > >2. The informal example in section 4.1 can be read as suggesting RDF >defined means to express propositional attitudes. We should be clear that >propositional attitudes are not supported. > >You also raise an issue of provenance, but I don't think that impacts the >Concepts document. > >(You also note RDF's lack of a mechanism to refer to a graph; by my >recollection, this idea, or something very like it, was discussed but >considered out of scope for the current WG effort, and has been noted as >an issue for possible future consideration. I don't think there's >anything else we should say in our documents.) > >If this adequately captures your concerns, I'll ask Brian to raise an >issue for this, so the WG can consider your comments and get back to you. > >#g >-- > >>The second issue is the question of unasserted forms/statements. >> >>I am unable to find an RDF example of how to represent >>a statement of belief (a propositional attitude). Neither can >>I find an example showing exactly what is meant by an >>unasserted RDF statement. (If there are examples, they are not >>identified as such. Or I somehow missed them). >> >>These are what I referred to as unanwered issues. I'm hoping that >>someone will tell me what the "official" position is. >>My last e-mail summarized my position >>as to these two issues, so I won't go any deeper here. > > > > > >------------------- >Graham Klyne ><GK@NineByNine.org> 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 19:43:42 UTC