Re: help wanted: RDF issue rdfms-assertion

Hmmmm.....I am not concerned with what lawyers think.  I am concerned with
Tim's statement that the *meaning* of an RDF assertion that *I* make is
necessarily controlled by the *owner*of*the*URI* for the predicate I am
using.  (Note that this is in direct contrast to Graham's suggestion, below.)

Since Tim is proposing that this requirement should be part of the RDF Core
spec, I think that it *is* an RDF Core issue.  I think that there *must* be
some way for the meaning of a predicate (or an assertion) to be separated from
the control of a single person or URI-owner.

Graham Klyne wrote:

> I would expect that the claimed meaning of a URI that is supported by a
> community of practice (e.g. one defined by W3C) would carry more legal
> weight than one used by a single individual (e.g. a web trader's private
> definition).
>
> (+usual disclaimer about not being a lawyer)
>
> [Hmmm: where does this discussion belong?  It's surely not logic, and only
> weakly related to RDFcore, I think.  I've copied rdf-logic because that's
> where the participants seem to be living.]
>
> #g
>
> At 05:46 PM 5/29/02 -0400, Lynn Andrea Stein wrote:
> >Yes, but the difference is that in "normal" parlance terms are defined by
> >communities of practice.  (One can argue about what the community uses a
> >term to mean, or about what community the term was used with respect to,
> >but there's no one definitive source for THE MEANING of the term other
> >than the community.)  In contrast, you have suggested that authority to
> >define the meaning of an RDF predicate IN FACT vests with the owner of the
> >URL.
>
> -------------------
> Graham Klyne
> <GK@NineByNine.org>

Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 10:28:32 UTC