Re: incorporating constructs with no formal meaning (was ....)


At 12:40 -0500 2002-02-18, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>I agree with you that properties with no formal meaning do have value.  But
>I don't see any more meaning to rdf:subject than to foo:child (at least in
>the formal part of RDF).  If RDF is going to include a vocabulary for
>statements, with no extra formal meaning for the constructs in this
>vocabulary, then why should RDF not include a vocabulary for people?

OK, I was more thinking of vocabulary like "rdfs:label" etc... The 
point is, that if they have no formal meaning (as is the case), it 
can definitely be argued that they do not belong in the core 
*language* - I myself would be among the first to argue that; 
however, since it is the case that if we do not standardize them, the 
resulting Tower of Babble will be unmanageable when people will start 
inventing their own. Hence, they do belong in the *standard*.

I agree that if there is vocabulary for statements, it should not be 
without formal meaning.

Vocabulary for people...? I personally wouldn't touch that one.

	- Ora

Ora Lassila
Research Fellow, Nokia Research Center

Received on Monday, 18 February 2002 20:04:55 UTC