- From: patrick hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 11:40:44 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> >Subject: Re: MISC: Internet Media Type registration: proposed TAG finding >Date: 23 May 2002 22:08:16 -0500 > >> On Thu, 2002-05-23 at 19:14, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > >[...] > >> > For example, I could claim that pfps:Truth is a part of RDF, >>whose intended >> > meaning is the type of all true propositions in first-order logic. Does >> > mean that RDF captures first-order truth? Not at all! >> >> I'm not sure what you mean by 'captures', but yes, your pfps schema/spec >> would provide a term that folks can use to claim, in RDF syntax, >> that things are first-order truths. >> >> It wouldn't be unprecedented, by the way: >> >> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#Truth >> >> > > These >> > > informal prose documents, e.g. the dublin core spec, >> > > still have semantics: they still divide interpretations >> > > into true and false. >> > >> > Sure, but this informal part is *not* part of RDF. >> >> I accept that as your opinion. I disagree. >> Perhaps if you'd share the argument that leads >> you to that conclusion, we could discuss it further. > >Well, I was going to say the following that there was nothing in the RDF >specification that would sanction the inclusion of user-written prose in the >meaning of RDF documents. However, then I re-read the RDFSS, and found > > rdfs:comment > > The <code>rdfs:comment</code> property is used to provide a > human-readable description of a resource. > > A textual comment helps clarify the meaning of RDF classes > and properties. Such inline documentation complements the use > of both formal techniques (Ontology and rule languages) and > informal (prose documentation, examples, test cases). A > variety of documentation forms can be combined to indicate > the intended meaning of the classes and properties described > in an RDF Schema. > > Multilingual documentation of schemas is supported at the > syntactic level through use of the <code>xml:lang</code> > language tagging facility. Since RDF schemas are expressed as > RDF graphs, vocabularies defined in other namespaces may be > used to provide richer documentation. > >So, I do have to agree that in a certain sense, RDFS (not RDF itself, >however) *does* indeed bring the meaning of user-written prose into the >meaning of its documents. Further, I believe that the creators of RDFS did >indeed want this prose to affect the meaning of RDFS documents. Sorry, >Pat, you will have to redo your model theory document. I don't think so. The second paragraph says '..combined to indicate the *intended* meaning...', (my emphasis), which is fine. If we read the first sentence as referring to *intended* meanings rather than meanings (which I suspect is what was, er, intended) then this is all a perfectly reasonable account of what one would expect rdfs:comment to mean. Intended meanings and actual meanings do not, of course, always correspond exactly to one another. >Hmmm. Let me think about this. ... > >I, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, an employee of Lucent Technologies, Inc., a >member of the W3C, do believe that the RDF Vocabulary Description Language >1.0: RDF Schema candidate recommendation is dangerously complicated. I >will instruct Lucent Technologies, Inc., to vote against the acceptance of >any proposal that includes language similar to the language for >rdfs:comment given above. I would endorse that, to be sure. It would be crazy to accept that wording with the interpretation you are putting on it. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 12:40:36 UTC