W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: RDF Issue rdfms-assertion

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 14:54:11 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020916144809.03d01ec0@127.0.0.1>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, connolly@w3.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, danbri@w3.org (Dan Brickley)

At 01:50 PM 9/15/02 -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
[[
>I note that the primacy of the predicate in determining the meaning has 
>not been
>mentioned.
]]

I noticed a comment to similar effect in your previously posted review 
comments 
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0092.html).

I must say this is not a topic I am aware has been discussed -- before 
writing it off as a battle not to be picked, I'd be interested to hear any 
thoughts about the consequences of such a view.  Or, indeed, if there's any 
coherent view in which the predicate is not of primary importance.

What undesirable effects do you suspect if some view other than "primacy of 
the predicate in determining the meaning" is adopted?

#g
--

At 01:50 PM 9/15/02 -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:

>Going over old mail I find yours and apologize for having missed it
>during the summer.
>
>I am happy that the issue has been addressed.
>
>I note that the primacy of the predicate in determining the meaning has 
>not been
>mentioned.
>
>I am happy that the issue was addressed to the point that one
>can argue that an RDF document has meaning, and the meaning is the conjunction
>of the meaning of the statements.
>
>Under the rubrick of picking my battles, I'll let this one go.
>
>Tim
>
>On Thursday, August 29, 2002, at 01:41 PM, Brian McBride wrote:
>
>>_________-
>>From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>>Date: Thu Aug 29, 2002  01:41:39 PM US/Eastern
>>To: connolly@w3.org, timbl@w3.org
>>Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
>>Subject: RDF Issue rdfms-assertion
>>
>>Dan, Tim,
>>In
>>
>>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-
>>comments/2001JanMar/0077.html
>>
>>you raised an issue which was captured in
>>
>>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-assertion
>>
>>as
>>
>>[[[
>>RDF is not just a data model. The RDF specs should define a semantics so 
>>that an RDF statement on the web is interpreted as an assertion of that 
>>statement such that its author would be responsible in law as if it had 
>>been published in, say, a newspaper.
>>]]]
>>
>>As recorded in
>>
>>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0224.html
>>
>>the RDFCore WG has resolved this issue as follows:
>>
>>that the text in section 2.3.2 of the Concepts and Abstract Data
>>Model document resolves this issue and it be closed.
>>
>>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Aug/0003.html
>>
>>Please could you respond to this message, copying www-rdf-
>>comments@w3.org indicating whether this is an acceptable resolution of 
>>this issue.
>>
>>Brian McBride
>>RDFCore co-chair
>
>-------------------
>Graham Klyne
><GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Monday, 16 September 2002 11:16:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:30 GMT