- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:46:01 +0200
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
[...] > 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.). that's right Graham, sorry for that so what about following sentences ===== Using RDF, 'received meaning' can be characterized as the social meaning of any logical consequences. 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. Human publishers of RDF content commit themselves to the mechanically-inferred social obligations. The machines doing the inferences aren't expected to know what all those social conventions/obligations are about. ==== -- , Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 29 July 2002 06:46:38 UTC