- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 13:22:20 +0000
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Cc: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 12:14 05/12/2002 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote: [...] >What the previous text does not say, and concerning which there was a >comment on the Concepts document, Reference please. What was the comment? > is that even though third-party vocabularies are generally unconstrained > by opthers who may use them, there may yet be some that are sufficiently > well-trusted for serious use. If you don't want to go into legal > territory, the final sentence might be pared down to, say: > >[[ >For important documents this may mean that use of third-party vocabulary >is restricted to terms defined by reputable organizations (e.g. recognized >standards bodies), or that otherwise have socially well-established meanings. >]] Right, that avoids the pitfall I mentioned, but I'm still wondering why a normative spec would be saying anything of the form "There might be ..." Brian
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 08:20:57 UTC