W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: [RDF-concepts:113-Various] Re: Social Meaning and RDF

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:46:57 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030224133736.02b06ee8@localhost>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

At 11:22 21/02/2003 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote:
>Peter,
>
>Thank you for response.  I don't think the issues are yet fully clarified, 
>but it's clear that revision must be considered, so I'll ask Brian to 
>raise an issue (or several) for this.  I think the summary I used 
>previously reflects your concerns (I recap here for Brian's convenience):

Brian is grateful.


>> > 1. Intended meanings are external to the RDF graph, not contained.  As
>> > such, why are they covered in the normative aspects of RDF specification?
>> >
>> > 2. Does the material on social meaning have any impact on the behaviour of
>> > an RDF application?  If not, why is the material here at all?

I believe that these two are collected in the social meaning comment.

   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-14

>> >
>> > 3. The idea that some party controls the meaning of a given URI is counter
>> > to the goal that "anyone can say things about anything".

I could envisage and issue - "how is the social meaning of a URI 
determined", but I think that's part of the issue above.

This, as stated is about a contradiction between a statement and a 
"goal".  Is there some specific text we can point to that is 
contradictory?  Till then, I'm not sure what the WG can do with this.

>> >
>> > 4. What are the mechanisms by means of which an RDF expression is
>> > designated as being asserted, as opposed to an expression which is not
>> > regarded as asserting some truth?
>
>(It may be that (3) and (4) should be raised as distinct issues.)

Personally, I'd rather keep them bundled together.  I agree that breaking 
the broader issue down, as you have done is a good thing, but my concern is 
that if separated out, these issues will take on a life of their own for no 
good purpose.

I'd like to see us work up a short text analysing the overall issue, but 
keeping this subquestions in context.

Brian
Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 08:51:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT