W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2002

Review new document [was: Minutes telecon 26th July 2002]

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>
Message-ID: <OFD6A45D18.5B0B6863-ONC1256C03.004D1F6B@agfa.be>


> ACTION jos Review new document, particularly section 2.3.

1/ what I've been missing are
   (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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:14 UTC