RE: No Standard Semantic Web Pragmatics?

At 13:57 14/06/04 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
>No, that is exactly what they do not provide. That is John's point: there 
>is a gap here precisely because the SW notations only express CONTENT, 
>they do not express INTENTION.  The stuff about performatives in the paper 
>I helped write was intended to be a step towards bridging this gap, since 
>performatives in natural language are exactly where an intention is 
>expressed unambiguously by stating - describing - the intention. If enough 
>people say that Jack and Jill are married, in the right way and under the 
>right circumstances, then they are married. If I say "I promise to buy you 
>lunch" then an actual promise got created: I performed a social act by 
>saying that I was performing it. Very handy, that is: it gets you from 
>mere descriptions (which we indubitably have in RDF and OWL) to actual 
>intentional actions: it gets assertings (denials, explicit non-assertings, 
>endorsements, whatever) actually done, and in a publicly checkable way 
>rather than being left implicit.

Concerning expression of intent...

Joseph Reagle posted a note some time ago about incorporating a description 
of (P3P-related) intent into XML signatures.  I think there's an 
interesting idea here, though I think some of the details (e.g. of RDF 
usage) are problematic...

   http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-p3p-profile/

#g



------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact

Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2004 06:48:14 UTC