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

Re: Review new document [was: Minutes telecon 26th July 2002]

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 15:59:34 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

At 04:17 PM 7/27/02 +0200, Jos De_Roo wrote:

> > ACTION jos Review new document, particularly section 2.3.
>1/ what I've been missing are
>      rdf:List
>      rdf:first
>      rdf:rest
>      rdf:nil
>    (resulting from rdf:parseType="Collection")
>    and all WD's should be upgraded for that

Thanks:  the vocabulary list is being replaced with a reference to the 
syntax document.

>2/ 2.3 Meaning of RDF documents
>    I can't do better than Pat's comments made some time ago
>    [[[
>       Would you agree that 'received meaning' can be
>       characterized as the social meaning of any logical
>       consequences? That gives a clean characterization
>       which I think is what Tim is getting at. If you
>       publish a graph G and G entails G', and we interpret
>       G' using the same social conventions that everyone
>       agrees could be reasonably used to interpret G, then
>       you are asserting that content of G' as well.
>       Tim wants to prevent human publishers of RDF content
>       from wriggling out of their mechanically-inferred
>       social obligations; I want to be clear that the
>       machines doing the inference aren't expected to know
>       what all this human stuff is about.
>    ]]]
>    which I agree with

I agree too, and that's the general intent I'm trying to capture.  But the 
words as above aren't really appropriate for inclusion in a document (e.g. 
references to what "Tim wants", etc.).


Graham Klyne
Received on Monday, 29 July 2002 05:39:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:59 UTC