W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > December 2002

Re: Using third-party vocabularies

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 10:25:47 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021204101614.00a30180@127.0.0.1>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 11:44 PM 12/3/02 -0600, pat hayes wrote:
>>Related to all this, I think there is a legitimate caveat:  if one makes 
>>legally binding statements using language terms defined by some other 
>>party, then one would be well advised to confirm that they define the 
>>terms persistently in a fashion that corresponds to the expected 
>>meaning.   So, in important documents, one would probably limit oneself 
>>to using vocabulary defined by some reputable organization, or standards 
>>body, etc.
>
>Good point to make. If you use terms from sources that you don't trust, 
>they may have consequences that you don't intend. Caveat lector.

Wouldn't that be caveat scriptor?

Jeremy:

maybe there are a few words that should added to the Concepts draft?  e.g.

[[
In publishing a statement with potentially significant legal or social 
consequences, one should take care to use vocabulary whose meaning is 
well-defined, stable and known to correspond to the intended meaning.  For 
important documents, such as contracts, this may mean that use of 
third-party vocabulary is restricted to terms defined by legislature, 
recognized standards bodies or other reputable organizations.  Using terms 
from untrustworthy sources may have unintended consequences.
]]

In view of this discussion, maybe this can help to clarify some of the 
relationship between third party vocabularies and meanings?  I think it 
does address at least one of the comments we've received.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2002 05:56:39 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:48 EDT