W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > May 2001

Re: Issue http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#mime-types-for-rdf-docs

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:14:28 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 09:40 AM 5/3/01 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:
>The points that Frank has raised are substantive; I'm not sure that the
>rdfms-assertion issue is going to be easy to deal with.  For example, you say
>that the 'sender' is asserting any RDF statements 'sent' to be true.  Who 
>is the
>sender, e.g. in the case of RDF embedded in your home page?  Your isp?  When
>this issue was raised at the rdf-interest f2f, there was a suggestion that 
>assertions should have consequences in law, e.g. if they are libelous - 
>how does
>one determine exactly what has been said in a way that will work in court?
>These are deep waters.  What do you think of following Frank's suggestion and
>separating the mime-type issue from the assertion issue?

There has been some suggestion that:

"top-level" RDF statements are asserted in the context in which they 
appear, and that reification, rather than being a mechanism for quoting, 
might be viewed as a syntactic device for nesting RDF statements in other 
RDF statements.  The effect is close to the current situation, but might 
help to resolve some of the semantic issues that have been raised.  The 
reference to "context in which it occurs" avoids the issue of having to 
assign provenance when it isn't known.

(I'm not convinced this is the right way, just raising it.)


Graham Klyne                    Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research              Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>    <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
Received on Monday, 7 May 2001 12:00:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:00 UTC