- From: Peter Crowther <peter.crowther@networkinference.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 11:04:51 +0100
- To: "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>, "Peter F. \"Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] > On Fri, 2002-05-24 at 19:09, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: [...] > > Yes, and this is no longer RDF. > > I accept that as your opinion. I disagree. > Argument by assertion is really no fun. It may be no fun, but it's what tends to happen all too frequently when two parties cannot agree on their definitions and are thus using terms in different ways. Is there any way we can clarify terms here? Peter seems to be using the term 'RDF' to mean 'the RDF layer only, characterised by the RDF M&S and the RDF Model Theory'. I may not have that correct - Peter? Is that appropriate? Dan seems to be using the term 'RDF' to mean 'the RDF layer and everything that has ever been encoded as a triple by any agent that uses the RDF layer'. Again, I may not have that correct - Dan? Is that appropriate? Dan *may* also be using the term 'RDF' to include 'things that have been or could be deduced by an RDF-aware agent'; I'm less sure of this. Dan? So the problem seems to come down to terminology, which is somehow appropriate for this group. The core question appears to be "is an inference, or an inferred triple, 'RDF' if it can only be inferred by using some inference mechanism that is not inherent to the RDF layer and its model theory?" Peter's and Dan's answers appear both to be valid given their different definitions of this quintessential element: RDF itself. A number of other discussions around this area seem to have generated more heat than light, and it appears that at least one of the reasons is that different participants have different ideas of what 'RDF' is. Is it worth trying to agree a definition of 'RDF' that we can use as the basis of further discussion, so that we can get onto discussion by reasoned argument rather than by assertion? Just my $0.02 (which can be paid neither by one dollar bill nor by four quarters). - Peter
Received on Monday, 27 May 2002 06:05:36 UTC