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

Peter Patel-Schneider wrote concerning the issue of 
"social 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
>
>Take a look at the example in RDF Concepts.   The part that makes the
>connection is natural language.  How are you going to proof check that?

Is this refering to the Clown example in 2.4.3.1 of the Nov 8 version of 
the RDF Concepts document?  The initial reference was to something in
section 4.5 of the concepts document, but I found no example there at
all.

-Evan