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

Re: help wanted: RDF issue rdfms-assertion

From: Lynn Andrea Stein <lynn.stein@olin.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 13:48:21 -0400
Message-ID: <3CF51465.456102CE@olin.edu>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
CC: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Apologies for the long excerpt (below), but this message doesn't make sense
without the context.  Cutting directly to the chase,

is there a problem with what Tim Berners-Lee says in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2002May/0086.html

[[

     I think that it [rdfms-assertion] should say that the predicate
     determines the meaning of any
     statement.

     It should specify in the specific case of predicate rdf:type that the

     definition of rdf:type is that the object determines the meaning of
     the
     statement.

     It should then hand off to the URI spec to say that "determines"
     above means
     that those publishing issuing or owning terms are the ones who
     definitively
     define (through specs etc) what they mean.  Issues of
     ownership, and dereference are covered not in the RDF spec but
     directly or indirectly in the URI spec.

]]

Leaving aside the question of whether rdf can be used to say something
unasserted, I think there's another issue here.

If I use (say) Jan's predicate foo, am I legally responsible for a statement
that takes its meaning from something that Jan may later change?  Since the
owner of a uri can cange its content, what assurance do I have that the
vocabulary I use won't change out from under me?

Lynn

Tim Berners-Lee wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> To: <timbl@w3.org>
> Cc: "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 1:38 PM
> Subject: help wanted: RDF issue rdfms-assertion
>
> > Tim,
> >
> > The RDFCore WG seeks your help with an RDF issue, rdfms-assertion:
> >
> >    http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-assertion
> >
> > [[
> > Summary: RDF is not just a data model. The RDF specs should define a
> > semantics so that an RDF statement on the web is interpreted as an
> > assertion of that statement such that its author would be responsible in
> > law as if it had been published in, say, a newspaper.
> > ]]
> >
> > The WG believes that this issue originates with you.
> >
> > I would like to clearly establish what it is that you would like from us.
> >
> > A number of concerns have been raised about this issue:
> >
> >    o RDF is just one of several specifications that are 'in play' when an
> > RDF statement is retrieved from the web.  What is the minimum the RDF
> specs
> > must say to achieve the effect that you want.
>
> I think that it should say that the predicate determines the meaning of any
> statement.
>
> It should specify in the specific case of predicate rdf:type that the
> definition of rdf:type is that the object determines the meaning of the
> statement.
>
> It should then hand off to the URI spec to say that "determines" above means
> that those publishing issuing or owning terms are the ones who definitively
> define (through specs etc) what they mean.  Issues of
> ownership, and dereference are covered not in the RDF spec but
> directly or indirectly in the URI spec.
>

(discussion then turns to other aspects of this issue)
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 13:49:05 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:48:16 EDT