- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 18:01:09 +0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Peter, At 01:53 PM 2/19/03 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > (b) If so, does any such meaning affect the behaviour of an RDF > application? > >See above. > > > My answer here is an emphatic "no". RDF does not require or expect that > > RDF applications have awareness of any social meaning that may be conveyed > > by RDF content. > >I don't understand this reasoning. If social meaning has importance to >RDF, then RDF applications will have to be cognizant of the entirety of >social meaning to avoid legal problems. I just re-read your comment, and noticed: "If social meaning has importance to RDF ...". I think that's not what we're trying to say; rather: (a) RDF can have importance for social meaning, and (b) RDF can convey propositions that are opaque to RDF, but may be interpreted socially. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Friday, 21 February 2003 13:06:49 UTC