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

Re: Social meaning discussion 6th March

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 00:06:56 +0000
Message-ID: <3E5FF9A0.6000300@hpl.hp.com>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isis.unc.edu>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>


>>> 2. The meaning of the statement is defined by the definition
>>> of the predicate, as applying to the subject and object identified by 
>>> the
>>> definition of the subject and object terms.


>> This for me is the crux: do we mean the machine oriented 'definition'
>> in RDFS or OWL or N3, or some more rounded/scruffy/social notion of 
>> definition.

I find Bijan's observation compelling
But there's no vague, much less precise, definition of "defining 
information". And I'm a logical reasoner, will this information be opaque 
to me? (Well, if in German, yes, but *all* human reasoners?)
So it's formal meaning isn't fixed IN ANY WAY by the "authority"? And the 
social meaning?

Two points:
- "whatevers available" is simply not clear enough.
- RDF has decided to avoid the notion of definition for the formal 
semantics, we shouldn't then have it in the informal semantics.

For me, either of these is fatal. This cat has had its nine lives.

Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 19:07:57 UTC

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