W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sw-meaning@w3.org > March 2004

RE: Self-descriptive assertions

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 20:44:34 -0000
Message-ID: <E864E95CB35C1C46B72FEA0626A2E80801EA19EE@0-mail-br1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hp.com>
Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org

Hello Mark, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:mbaker@markbaker.ca] On Behalf Of Mark Baker
> Sent: 25 March 2004 18:43
> To: Williams, Stuart
> Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Self-descriptive assertions
> 
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 05:34:19PM -0000, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> > > Extracting the graph isn't the bad part.  What's bad is believing 
> > > that the recipient was trying to communicate the graph.
> >                      ^^^^^^^^sender?
> 
> Doh!  Must be the head cold. 8-(
> 
> > What (I think) would be bad would be assuming/believing that the 
> > sender meant to send with media-type application/rdf+xml.
> 
> True, but why is that bad? 

Because its not what the sender said. BTW - you introduced the value
judgement 'bad' into the discussion.

> I believe it's because - as I 
> said above - that the recipient would believe that the sender 
> is trying to communicate the graph.

I guess that your are free to believe (1st believe above) that... but I
don't think it would be a universally shared belief (2nd believe above).

> Mark.
> -- 
> Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca

Cheers,

Stuart
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2004 15:45:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:16 GMT