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 13:42:20 +0100
To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
Cc: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFB428FABF.0B28F365-ONC1256CB3.004585FF-C1256CB3.0045D4B2@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 the
> > > 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)
>
> Huh?  How can they be *proved*?  What system will do the proving?

well, I should have said *proof checked* as the
formally sanctioned inference processes in above [*]
should generate/exchange their proofs

> The example in RDF Concepts indicates that the agent that combines
> information is responsible for any consequences of the social meaning of
> whatever it combines, even if the agent has no possibility of
understanding
> this social meaning.   It appears to me, futhermore, that the source of
> this social meaning could be completely outside the World-Wide Web, even
to
> the point of being in the mind of some deceased person.

it is free to use any sources, but once it is asserting
them it should carry all consequences (in proof form)
what's so wrong with that?

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Sunday, 19 January 2003 07:43:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:57 GMT