- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 18:05:11 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- CC: RDF comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Section 2.3.3 is unclear.
In particular the statement:
"Human publishers of RDF content commit themselves
to the mechanically-inferred social obligations."
needs greater clarification.
Is the mechanical inference referred to here solely RDF entailment from the
asserted graph G (as implied by the context of the preceding paragraph)? If so,
that is reasonable since the space of RDF entailments is so limited.
However, without clarification the phrase might be construed to also refer to
entailment based on G together with graphs asserted elsewhere or to the sort of
deduction discussed in the subsequent paragraphs with its mix of social and
logical dimensions and not-demonstrably-valid implementations - that would not
be reasonable!
Section 2.3.2 is also a little problematic in the light of 2.3.3 in that the
"combination of social and technical machinery" for distinguishing assertions
from "other uses (e.g. citations, denials or illustrations)" is not actually
defined anywhere which makes "mechanically-inferred social obligations" extra
worrying.
Dave
Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 13:05:19 UTC