Re: Using third-party vocabularies

At 12:14 05/12/2002 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote:

[...]


>What the previous text does not say, and concerning which there was a 
>comment on the Concepts document,

Reference please.  What was the comment?

>  is that even though third-party vocabularies are generally unconstrained 
> by opthers who may use them, there may yet be some that are sufficiently 
> well-trusted for serious use.  If you don't want to go into legal 
> territory, the final sentence might be pared down to, say:
>
>[[
>For important documents this may mean that use of third-party vocabulary 
>is restricted to terms defined by reputable organizations (e.g. recognized 
>standards bodies), or that otherwise have socially well-established meanings.
>]]

Right, that avoids the pitfall I mentioned, but I'm still wondering why a 
normative spec would be saying anything of the form  "There might be ..."

Brian