W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2003

RE: Social Meaning Boston 6 March

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:35:52 +0100
To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDCECCCBAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


"significant" might not have been the right word, but certainly extensive
enough to get a slot on the agenda at the tech plenary.

I am trying to maximize the utility of that slot, to me, as one of the
responsible editors.

The wording of the message was intended to convey clearly that the RDFCore
WG is in charge of the document.

The recent discussion on this topic that I have been party to has been on
WebOnt; where there is more opposition to our wording than in RDFCore. Since
the social meaning of RDF becomes the social meaning of OWL this seems in
order.

My hope is that with face2face conversation between people who feel strongly
about this issue minor wording changes could be suggested that:
- continue to create connection between RDF Formal semantics and the real
world
- continue to indicate the possibility of legally binding agreements
- but avoid any sensitivities unintentionally transgressed

As editor, I believe that if this is possible then the WG would be likely to
approve such changes since:
- the resolution of rdfms-assertion would still be conveyed
- a comment about social meaning from PFPS
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0192.html
(which doesn't seem to have made it into the LC issue list - but is clearly
intended as a Last Call comment) and probably others in webont may be
addressable

Since PFPS regards this as a "fatal flaw" I am under obligation to at least
fully understand where he (and others) differ from the WG position which I
support.

Jeremy


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian McBride [mailto:bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 13 February 2003 23:44
> To: Jeremy Carroll; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Social Meaning Boston 6 March
>
>
> At 21:32 13/02/2003 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>
>
> >I am posting this message to three lists, sorry for duplicate copies.
> >
> >There has been a significant discussion on the social meaning
> >parts of the RDF Concepts Last Call.
>
> Really!  Where?
>
> Brian
>
>
Received on Monday, 17 February 2003 05:36:05 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:55:51 EDT