W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > January 2003

Re: issues to be resolved before last call (rdfms-assertion)

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 01:30:01 +0100
To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
Cc: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, welty@us.ibm.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFCAEC8A81.7F0EDD5D-ONC1256CB3.0002636A-C1256CB3.0002C7D5@agfa.be>

> > I think there are other points and I'm borrowing the
> > following from Pat as I couldn't express it better...
> >
> > The point is that publication of RDF, when considered
> > as a social act, constitutes a publication of some content
> > which is defined by whatever normal *social* conditions
> > are used by the publishers of any terms in the RDF to
> > define the meanings of those terms, even if those meanings
> > and definitions are not accessible to the formal semantics
> > of RDF; and, moreover, those meanings are *preserved* under
> > any formally sanctioned inference processes.
> Here is the very, very scary part.  Anyone publishing any RDF, even if
> publishing is being done by an agent that only understands RDF formal
> meaning, is considered to import the entirely of the social meaning of a
> bunch of other RDF documents.  How can any organization employ RDF agents
> under this extraordinarily strong reading of RDF meaning?

such RDF meanings can always be be proved and explained back to
their roots and those are held responsible for what they assert!

(plus that making information explicit removes it from the context)

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Saturday, 18 January 2003 19:30:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:50 UTC