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

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

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:19:50 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030121.131950.98263255.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
Subject: Re: issues to be resolved before last call (rdfms-assertion)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:35:07 -0500 (EST)

> 
> 
> 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
> 

You may need to look at the LCC version of the RDF Concepts document.  A
pointer is on the RDF Core WG home page.

peter
Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2003 13:20:05 GMT

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