- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 16 Dec 2002 15:49:51 -0600
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 11:02, pat hayes wrote: [...] > In general , this whole issue is a can of worms to get exactly right, > so the less specific we are, the better, seems to me. We should be > diluting the colors here, not painting bold clear strokes. > Perhaps; but the WG did make a decision on this issue (rdfms-assertion) so the editor's can't backtrack too far without reopening the issue... > Can't we just say that all uris can be traced to their 'owner' using > standard (ie non-RDF-particular) protocols and registration rules, > and that any uses of a uriref in any RDF published by the owner of > the uriref can be taken to be assertions made by the owner, and hence > authoritative, but that the owner is not necessarily responsible for > assertions made in RDF published by others, even if they use the > owner's URIs. In other words, I cannot be held responsible for > anything that someone else says using my vocabulary; but I am > responsible for using other people's vocabulary in ways that reflect > their published intended meanings. > Yes, that seems to cover it... I don't exactly understand how that's different from what you're arguing against, but if you like those words, so do I. > Seems to me that this is about all that we need to say (maybe with > some examples) yes, please. > and that it is potentially dangerous to say more than > this. I would prefer to avoid all references to 'defining' or > 'definitive' or 'interpretation' when talking about RDF meanings. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 16 December 2002 16:51:07 UTC