- From: patrick hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 11:46:35 -0500
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>so rdfs is... > >> dangerously complicated. > >...because we said that the full meaning of a property can't be fully >captured by current W3C-sanctioned formalisms? What is the 'full meaning of a property'? That is meaningless. >That's realism, not complication. There are many things that are true >of some RDF properties that RDFS, DAML+OIL, even CycL couldn't readily >capture. > >If RDF property and class meaning is to be *exhaustively* captured by >formalism, we'll need something more sophisticated than WebOnt's >current sketch. If not, we need our specs to make clear that machines >won't always understand the full picture. Right, but you phrase it badly. The actual meaning of the RDF isn't always the intended meaning that the human had in mind, right? But the *actual meaning of the RDF* is perfectly well-defined; that is what the model theory is for. The actual meaning of an RDF graph is the constraint placed on possible interpretations by the assertion of that graph. Applied to examples like http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log , that gives a perfectly exact account of their meaning: nothing. That RDF document is, quite literally, meaningless. The comments don't change this fact, which can be checked mechanically. 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 12:46:26 UTC