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

Graphs and documents

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:31:15 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021125112803.04267010@127.0.0.1>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

Responding to:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Nov/0526.html

At 07:55 PM 11/21/02 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>The key problem here is that the issue resolution really only talks about a
>single RDF document making an assertion.
>The editors have bravely tried to extend this issue resolution to multiple
>related independently authored RDF documents which when combined have
>slanderous entailment.
>(See particularly:
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-concepts-20021108/#section-InteractionExamp
>le
>)
>
>To make that work then the idea of a URI owner is needed, and this idea
>seems, somewhat problematic.
>
>However, a single document is hardly a semantic web!
>And without text such as that I am questioning, we could end up with the
>situation where in the clown example none of the original authors are liable
>but someone who sucks up that part of the semantic web and spits it out as a
>single document then has a legal liability!

Separately from the original comment... I think RDG core is about RDF 
graphs.  There are any number of conventions, some social, some technical, 
that might apply for constructing graphs from documents.  I thought we 
weren't ready to nail those down.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 09:36:30 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:10 EDT