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, 24 Feb 2003 11:13:39 +0100
To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org>
Cc: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

> Jeremy is suggesting - lets see if we can find a form of words that
> satisfies everyone.  I'm hoping that doesn't mean fudging the issue.

I would expect the WG to reject a form of words that satisfied everyone but
fudged the issue.

I hope *I* would not be satisified with a fudge.

I see the editorial task here as expressing the WG intent in such a way as
to avoid any unnecessary opposition.

I believe this intent is reasonably clear:

a) RDF has meaning that relates to the relate world.
b) This meaning is preserved under formal entailments.
c) This meaning should be socially enforceable in the same way as the
meaning of other languages that relate to the real world (e.g. English).
d) The document section should be normative.
e) The use of a word like "legal" is strongly preferred.

At this stage the only one of those that I think might be appropriate to
fudge is (e) if words like "socially enforceable" can be made to carry more

It may be beneficial to slightly fudge (b) by suggesting that contracts
underpinning multiparty systems that use RDF might specify which formal
system of entailments is intended (e.g. RDF entailments, RDFS entailments or
OWL entailments); I don't believe the WG ever reached closure on the
interaction between semantic extensions and social meaning.

Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 05:14:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:04 UTC