- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 13:02:25 -0500
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Hi David Thanks for the input. This is indeed an issue I hope to address. Pat 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