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: <>
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?


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.


Graham Klyne
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2002 05:56:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:03 UTC