Re: Using third-party vocabularies

At 16:56 04/12/2002 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote:

[...]


>Ah, I see your point.  This suggests a slight rearrangement;  the general 
>case, leading in to the 'significant' concerns:
>
>[[
>When making statements that use terms defined by a third party, one should 
>take care that the third party definition is consistent with ones intended 
>meaning, or the statements may have unintended consequences.
>
>In particular, when publishing a statement with potentially significant 
>legal or social consequences, use only vocabulary whose meaning is 
>well-defined, stable and known to correspond to the intended 
>commitment.  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, 
>or that otherwise have socially well-established meanings.
>]]

I suggest dropping the last sentence, "For important documents ...".

It doesn't add any normative value.  The point has already been made in the 
previous sentence, but it does potentially open a whole new can of 
worms.  Perhaps someone will ask us for a normative example of using RDF as 
a contract.  Lets not go there in this document.

Brian