Re: The TAG Member's Guide to ISSUE-57 Discussion - F2F reading

Hi David

Thanks for the input. This is indeed an issue I hope to address. 


On Mar 30, 2012, at 5:17 PM, David Booth wrote:

> Hi Pat,
> On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 14:24 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> FWIW, I am willing to work actively (on- or off-list) with anyone who
>> wants to try reconciling any proposal with the RDF semantics, or just
>> to explore any semantic issues. This is particularly timely as the
>> RDF2 WG is right now debating issues which impinge on the RDF
>> semantics framework, so it would be good to get any pending issues or
>> problems out into the open. 
> I would suggest that the RDF WG look at Part 3 "Determining Resource
> Identity" of "Resource Identity and Semantic Extensions: Making Sense of
> Ambiguity":
> That section proposes a standard process for determining resource
> identity.  As far as I know, I did not invent this process.  I simply
> documented what seemed to be the general ideas floating around. 
> However, I did identify one specific gap in the RDF specs:
> [[
> At present there is a minor gap in the RDF standards, in that there is
> no standard way for an RDF processor to recognize that a particular URI
> is intended to signal an opaque semantic extension: the knowledge of
> which URIs are intended to signal opaque semantic extensions must be
> externally supplied to the RDF processor.  The RDF processor must
> magically know about them in advance.  It cannot alert the user to the
> need for a new opaque semantic extension that was previously unknown.
> This gap could be addressed by defining a standard predicate, such as
> rdf2:requires, to explicitly indicate when a particular semantic
> extension is required.  However, since it currently seems unlikely that
> many semantic extensions will be needed that cannot be defined using
> standard inference rules, this does not seem like a major gap.
> ]]
> I will forward this message separately to the RDF comments list, since I
> cannot post to the regular RDF list.
> -- 
> David Booth, Ph.D.
> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
> reflect those of his employer.

IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile

Received on Saturday, 31 March 2012 18:03:00 UTC