- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 10:41:06 +0000
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>, pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 16:56 04/12/2002 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote: [...] >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. >]] I suggest dropping the last sentence, "For important documents ...". It doesn't add any normative value. The point has already been made in the previous sentence, but it does potentially open a whole new can of worms. Perhaps someone will ask us for a normative example of using RDF as a contract. Lets not go there in this document. Brian
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 05:39:55 UTC