Re: [closed] pfps-14 "Social Meaning and RDF"

There is also Section 2.2 of the RDF Primer that I already have pointed out
in one of the email messages that gave rise to this comment.  I do not
believe that any changes have been suggested for this section.

I note that you are suggesting to remove wording noting asserted and
non-asserted forms.  I'm not sure what change is to be made here.

I also note that you plan on leaving in references to comments containing
``defining information''.  In the absence of any connection between the
contents of comments and RDF meaning I suggest that this would be a source
of confusion and should be removed, particularly as RDF already treats
comments differently from their usual treatment.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Lucent Technologies



From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Subject: Re: [closed] pfps-14 "Social Meaning and RDF"
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 17:31:29 +0000

> At 07:37 14/03/2003 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
> >Subject: [closed] pfps-14 "Social Meaning and RDF"
> >Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:57:31 +0000
> >
> > > Subject: [closed] pfps-14 "Social Meaning and RDF"
> > >
> > > You raised made a last call comment [pfps-14] captured in:
> > >
> > >     http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-14
> > >
> > > The RDFCore WG has resolved:
> > >
> > >     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0068.html
> > >
> > > to accept this comment,
> > >
> > > by removing the section on social meaning from the Concepts document,
> > > per WG proposal:
> > >
> > >     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0029.html
> > >
> > > Please reply to this email, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org indicating
> > > whether this decision is acceptable.
> >
> >Hmm.  I don't view this as a comprehensive response to my comments on this
> >issue.
> >
> >I particular my message referenced in the issue list doesn't even mention
> >the section on social meaning.
> >
> >I await identification of other changes that may be done in response to
> >this comment.
> 
> I've reviewed your message [1] that prompted this issue to be raised, and 
> the only issues I see that may not be fully covered by withdrawal of the 
> social issues discussion are:
> 
> (a) distinguishing between asserted and non-asserted forms.  Since the RDF 
> language doesn't make such distinction (per the formal semantics), and this 
> was only an issue in the discussion of social meaning, it seems that there 
> is no further need to mention this.
> 
> (b) the idea of comments containing "defining information".  In the absence 
> of any social dimension in the RDF specification, I'm not sure how this 
> remains a concern.
> 
> If there is more that is not addressed here, please indicate what you think 
> we are overlooking.
> 
> #g
> --
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0192.html
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------
> Graham Klyne
> <GK@NineByNine.org>
> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
>

Received on Monday, 17 March 2003 13:45:37 UTC