At 12:09 AM 5/8/01 +0100, Craig Pugsley wrote: >Maybe I'm missing the point, but its my view that the key simile to a >'conventional' spoken language that RDF carries is its ability to convey >semantic information. We use languages to convey our own personal semantic >representations of abstract concepts and ideas we have. And this is exactly >what RDF is intended to (or at least 'can') do. I think that *any* language can be interpreted to convey semantic information. I think a goal of RDF is that it is structured in a way that makes it usable to convey a range of useful knowledge in a machine processable form. That is, it is not the ability to convey semantics per se that makes RDF useful so much as the particular engineering choices for machine processability. [...] >I'd say that RDF <is> a language, very much in the same sense as non >computer-based language. I won't argue that point. But it's not clear to me how non-computer languages are fundamentally different from computer languages, other than computer languages being engineered for machine interpretation of problem solutions in a relatively limited domain. #g ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG)Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2001 01:47:52 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:30 UTC