- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 16:35:29 +0000
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 11:13 AM 12/4/02 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >>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. >>]] > > >?? insert >[[ >restricted to terms defined by legislature, >recognized standards bodies or >other reputable organizations, >*** or to terms with well-established social meaning. *** >]] Yes, I think that broadly works for me. How about: *** or to terms with otherwise well-established social meaning. *** (noting that the defining bodies suggested are some ways of creating well-established social meaning, trying to dispel any suggestion of mutual exclusion.) ? #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2002 12:06:12 UTC