- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 16:56:10 +0000
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 10:18 AM 12/4/02 -0600, pat hayes wrote: >>[[ >>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. >>]] >Yes, I like the above. But I think that the general principle goes beyond >just the 'significant' legal cases: it applies everywhere. Ah, I see your point. This suggests a slight rearrangement; the general case, leading in to the 'significant' concerns: [[ When making statements that use terms defined by a third party, one should take care that the third party definition is consistent with ones intended meaning, or the statements may have unintended consequences. In particular, when publishing a statement with potentially significant legal or social consequences, use only vocabulary whose meaning is well-defined, stable and known to correspond to the intended commitment. 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, or that otherwise have socially well-established meanings. ]] #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2002 12:05:23 UTC