Jos, I like that... I've used that to improve and contract sections 2.3.3 and 2.3.4. Thanks! #g -- At 12:46 PM 7/29/02 +0200, Jos De_Roo wrote: >[...] > > > 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/ ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>Received on Monday, 29 July 2002 07:45:16 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:49:53 EDT