- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 18:24:38 -0600
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>+1 on What Dave Said. > >I feel like some of us are on different planets here. Vocabulary >meaning is not exhaustively accounted for by the MT/inferential story. We >admit that implicitly when we allow that two classes may have the same >extension yet be considered usefully different entities. >Attempting to divide the >RDF world into 'good' properties (those that are mentioned in some rules >we've written) and 'bad' ones (the rest) is imho a vast oversimplification >of the situation. The good/bad stuff is beside the point. It does however make some sense to split the vocabulary into what might be called free/restricted, where 'free' means that an implementer can do what they like with it, even if we provide some guidance, and still conform; but restricted means that conformance requires that they use it only in certain ways. On that criterion, rdf:li and rdf:nil would be in the restricted category, of course. Pat > >Dan > >* Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk> [2002-12-09 13:22+0000] >> >> >>>Patrick Stickler said: >> > >> > Here is my proposed verbage regarding terms with undefined >> > semantics, for inclusion into the Primer. Frank, feel free >> > to wordsmith freely. >> > >> > Note that the list was based on there being no defined semantics >> > for the term in the MT, even if there might be range, domain, >> > type, or other assertions made about the terms. The list (or the MT) >> > may need adjusting if it is incorrect... >> > >> > rdf:li was not mentioned in the MT, but that may be an omission >> > since it's in the syntax doc. It is included in the list >> > below. >> > >> > -- >> > The RDF/S vocabulary includes several terms the meaning of which >> > was undefined or ambiguous in earlier specifications of RDF and >> > which remain undefined in the present RDF MT. >> > >> > Specifically: >> > >> > rdf:value >> > rdf:Bag >> > rdf:Seq >> > rdf:Alt >> > rdf:li >> > rdf:_n >> > rdf:List >> > rdf:first >> > rdf:rest >> > rdf:nil >> > rdfs:comment >> > rdfs:seeAlso >> > rdfs:isDefinedBy >> > rdfs:label >> > >> > These terms remain in the RDF/S vocabulary for various historical >> > reasons. Their lack of an explicit or clear interpretation has >> > resulted in their being used in incompatable ways by different >> > applications. Nevertheless, as they provide utility to certain >> > RDF applications, and in the interest of backwards compatability, >> > they have not been deprecated or removed. >> >> That's wrong in several ways. >> >> rdf:List >> rdf:first >> rdf:rest >> rdf:nil >> >> These terms are not historical - they are new to this revision of RDF. >> >> rdf:li >> >> Never a property; a piece of rdf/xml syntax scaffolding. >> >> rdf:_n >> rdf:value >> rdf:Bag >> rdf:Seq >> rdf:Alt >> rdfs:comment >> rdfs:seeAlso >> rdfs:isDefinedBy >> rdfs:label >> >> None of these are deprecated and should not be described in any way >> as historical. They remain used, useful and staying that way. >> >> >> > Note that some of these terms do have certain constraints defined >> > in the MT for their use, such as their domain, range or type, but >> > their actual meaning is not specified. >> > >> > Users should take care when employing these terms, as there is no >> > guaruntee that any RDF applications will interpret them as intended. >> > It should also be noted that no valid inferences may be drawn from >> > statements using these terms, insofar as the model theory is concerned. >> > Any interpretation or inference based on these terms is entirely >> > application specific. >> >> "no valid inferences"! Rubbish. Don't say such things. Triples >> with these terms are valid. >> >> > This document contains examples which reflect how some of >> > these terms have been previously used; however such usage is >> > merely suggestive and in no way constitutes a normative definition >> > of their meaning or purpose. >> >> This is saying again that the primer is informational, but rather > > negatively. The primer is informational and useful; the formal >> meanings of the terms are in other docs, which are pointed to. >> >> Dave -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Monday, 9 December 2002 19:25:09 UTC