- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:59:11 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: <public-sw-meaning@w3.org>
At 13:57 14/06/04 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: >No, that is exactly what they do not provide. That is John's point: there >is a gap here precisely because the SW notations only express CONTENT, >they do not express INTENTION. The stuff about performatives in the paper >I helped write was intended to be a step towards bridging this gap, since >performatives in natural language are exactly where an intention is >expressed unambiguously by stating - describing - the intention. If enough >people say that Jack and Jill are married, in the right way and under the >right circumstances, then they are married. If I say "I promise to buy you >lunch" then an actual promise got created: I performed a social act by >saying that I was performing it. Very handy, that is: it gets you from >mere descriptions (which we indubitably have in RDF and OWL) to actual >intentional actions: it gets assertings (denials, explicit non-assertings, >endorsements, whatever) actually done, and in a publicly checkable way >rather than being left implicit. Concerning expression of intent... Joseph Reagle posted a note some time ago about incorporating a description of (P3P-related) intent into XML signatures. I think there's an interesting idea here, though I think some of the details (e.g. of RDF usage) are problematic... http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-p3p-profile/ #g ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2004 06:48:14 UTC