- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 16:17:22 +0200
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
[...]
> ACTION jos Review new document, particularly section 2.3.
1/ what I've been missing are
rdf:List
rdf:first
rdf:rest
rdf:nil
(resulting from rdf:parseType="Collection")
and all WD's should be upgraded for that
2/ 2.3 Meaning of RDF documents
I can't do better than Pat's comments made some time ago
[[[
Would you agree that 'received meaning' can be
characterized as the social meaning of any logical
consequences? That gives a clean characterization
which I think is what Tim is getting at. If you
publish a graph G and G entails G', and we interpret
G' using the same social conventions that everyone
agrees could be reasonably used to interpret G, then
you are asserting that content of G' as well.
Tim wants to prevent human publishers of RDF content
from wriggling out of their mechanically-inferred
social obligations; I want to be clear that the
machines doing the inference aren't expected to know
what all this human stuff is about.
]]]
which I agree with
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Saturday, 27 July 2002 10:18:04 UTC