- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 09:09:24 -0700
- To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
From: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> > >I don't expect you or the W3C to adopt that philosophy ... but by the same > >token I don't expect you to rule it out by what you write in our > >specifications. > > Tough luck. But in any case, if you are uninterested in truthvalues > or interpretations, and consider them unimportant, the existence of > an MT does not restrain your activities in any way. Just ignore it. Ok, I pretty much intend to. Yet, I must confess, I am drawn to this theory, I am fascinated by it ... it somehow lends legitimacy to our graphs. I even want a model theory for mentography. Anyone want to help me make one? > >Now let me ask a more practical question which, hopefully, will help me > >focus my understanding of your document. Before the Model Theory [1], we > >had RDF graphs and detailed specifications of how to form and communicate > >them [2 - 6]. Can you provide an actual example of a RDF graph that adheres > >to those specifications, yet is invalid according to the Model Theory ? > > No, but the question isn't meaningful. Validity is a property of a(n > inference) process that transforms graphs into other graphs, not a > property of a graph. Ok, I used the wrong word again. The question I am trying to ask in the broadest terms is: What difference will the MT make?. It seems to me that the MT is supposed to tell us what a graph ~means~ and even provides an algorithm to determine that ~meaning~. But this ~interpretation thingy~ can never be manifested inside a computer (can it?), so the algorithm can never be run (can it?). What real difference can this theory make, except to be used by people in their imagination to stamp the process as legitimate ? Seth Russell
Received on Monday, 8 October 2001 14:06:53 UTC