W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-tap@w3.org > June 2004

Re: TAP definition of Terrorist

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:10:33 -0400
To: "R.V.Guha" <guha@guha.com>
Cc: Rob McCool <robm@robm.com>, public-rdf-tap@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040623191033.GE23675@homer.w3.org>

* R.V.Guha <guha@guha.com> [2004-06-22 18:23+0530]
> Sorry for the late entry into the discussion ... I was away in 
> India. 14.4 kbps is extremely painful.
> Anyway, I agree with Dan that TAP might have a shot at getting 
> uniformly accepted, but before that can happen, it has to 
> become more neutral. I also think that the best way to do this 
> is via contexts.

Do you think the terms (in TAP, and other larger vocabs) need to be
partitioned? Or can they, with some care, be neutral and be the thing
used to bind together different views/contexts? 

ie. should we be looking for a more neutral, persective-binding set of
terms than 'Terrorist' (eg. Militant, ... whatever), or stick with the 
contentious terminology and shuffle things around into value-packs. SO I
might buy into different values much as I use different software

Tricky stuff... maybe we could work through an example?

Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2004 15:10:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:43:14 UTC