- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 10:25:47 +0000
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 11:44 PM 12/3/02 -0600, pat hayes wrote: >>Related to all this, I think there is a legitimate caveat: if one makes >>legally binding statements using language terms defined by some other >>party, then one would be well advised to confirm that they define the >>terms persistently in a fashion that corresponds to the expected >>meaning. So, in important documents, one would probably limit oneself >>to using vocabulary defined by some reputable organization, or standards >>body, etc. > >Good point to make. If you use terms from sources that you don't trust, >they may have consequences that you don't intend. Caveat lector. Wouldn't that be caveat scriptor? Jeremy: maybe there are a few words that should added to the Concepts draft? e.g. [[ In publishing a statement with potentially significant legal or social consequences, one should take care to use vocabulary whose meaning is well-defined, stable and known to correspond to the intended meaning. For important documents, such as contracts, this may mean that use of third-party vocabulary is restricted to terms defined by legislature, recognized standards bodies or other reputable organizations. Using terms from untrustworthy sources may have unintended consequences. ]] In view of this discussion, maybe this can help to clarify some of the relationship between third party vocabularies and meanings? I think it does address at least one of the comments we've received. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2002 05:56:39 UTC