- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:29:15 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Hi Pat, Pat Hayes wrote: >> Issue >> >> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-assertion >> >> Summary: RDF is not just a data model. The RDF specs should define a >> semantics so that an RDF statement on the web is interpreted as an >> assertion of that statement such that its author would be responsible >> in law as if it had been published in, say, a newspaper. >> >> Propose that the RDF model theory defines a semantics for RDF and that >> this issue be closed. > > > Er...I'm not sure if the MT (or any MT) would quite fix the meaning > enough to satisfy a *lawyer*. There are many issues about meaning still > left open (eg exactly how to interpret URIs, things like that.). What > the MT does do is tie down exactly what it is kosher to *infer* from > some RDF. You are right, I was playing a bit fast and loose with that one. I'm really suggesting that the model theory is all we are going to say about the meaning of RDF. What the law chooses to do about folks who put RDF statements on web pages is a matter for lawyers and politicians, not for us. Brian
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2001 08:29:30 UTC