W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2012

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

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 13:02:25 -0500
Cc: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <97F055E0-0DD3-4BCD-9D53-BC2767A11CEF@ihmc.us>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
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":
> http://dbooth.org/2010/ambiguity/paper.html#part3
> 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.
> http://dbooth.org/
> 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
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Saturday, 31 March 2012 18:03:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:14 UTC