Re: issues to be resolved before last call (rdfms-assertion)

From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Subject: Re: issues to be resolved before last call (rdfms-assertion)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:35:26 +0100

> 
> >At 13:19 -0500 1/21/03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >>From: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
> >>Subject: Re: issues to be resolved before last call (rdfms-assertion)
> >>Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:35:07 -0500 (EST)
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  Peter Patel-Schneider wrote concerning the issue of
> >>>  "social meaning":
> >>>
> >>>  >> > > such RDF meanings can always be be proved and explained back to
> >>>  >> > > their roots and those are held responsible for what they assert!
> >>>  >> > > (plus that making information explicit removes it from the> context)
> >>>  >> >
> >>>  >> > Huh?  How can they be *proved*?  What system will do the proving?
> >>>  >>
> >>>  >> well, I should have said *proof checked* as the
> >>>  >> formally sanctioned inference processes in above [*]
> >>>  >> should generate/exchange their proofs
> >>>  >
> >>>  >Take a look at the example in RDF Concepts.   The part that makes the
> >>>  >connection is natural language.  How are you going to proof check that?
> >>>
> >>>  Is this refering to the Clown example in 2.4.3.1 of the Nov 8 version of
> >>>  the RDF Concepts document?  The initial reference was to something in
> >>>  section 4.5 of the concepts document, but I found no example there at
> >>>  all.
> >>>
> >>>  -Evan

[...]

> which can be proof checked
> the rdfs:comment remains opaque, we just have the reason

In this case the social meaning is supposed to come from a natural langauge
rdfs:comment, so you can proof check back to the rdfs:comment.  However,
this doesn't get you anywhere close to the social meaning.  How are you
going to get there?

Also, what if the social meaning comes from an XML comment?  What if it
comes from something not on the web at all?


> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/


Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Lucent Technologies

Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2003 17:44:37 UTC