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: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:24:03 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020729122324.039bf290@127.0.0.1>
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>

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