- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 10:43:34 -0400
- To: "John Black" <JohnBlack@deltek.com>
- Cc: "<public-sw-meaning@w3.org>" <public-sw-meaning@w3.org>
On Jun 2, 2004, at 9:13 AM, John Black wrote: [snip] > But my real point is the symmetry between correct publishing behavior > and correct interpreting behavior. > > So lets change the scene a little: [snipped silly caricature that not only makes Peter and me out to be Machiavellian morons, but doesn't even vaguely hook up to anything we've said] You might take a little time to edit your posts before sending them. Restating an example you just posted not a full day before, only this time incorporating your interlocutors in a fairly derogatory way and yet not otherwise augmenting or elaborating the example is just a waste. > The point is that there are use cases where it would be critical > that an interpreting agent be required to discover and report > the actual meaning of a set of published documents. And this > might be aided by giving URI authors facilities to specify what > that meaning is. We author documents, not URIs. I want my documents to be largely under my control. I prepared for some leeway in interpretation (e.g., looking at a document purely as well formed XML rather than as the particular PSVI I intended), but I don't think that every use of a URI in document *content* should give that URIs owner licence to insert whatever into my document. I'm not adverse to that entirely, obviously, since this pretty much is what owl:imports gives me. It's like the difference between an <a href=.. and an <img src... You don't always want transclusion. None of this has a WHIT to do with some intermediary inserting or altering content "for my own good". Nothing. Nothing at all. Not even a little. Let go, ok? There is an interesting question of what aggregators and other republishers might reasonable want or be expected to do. But that is a separate issue. Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2004 10:45:08 UTC