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

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

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:46:01 +0200
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFD2DBB888.C9FF458C-ONC1256C05.003865CC@agfa.be>


> I agree too, and that's the general intent I'm trying to capture.
> But the words as above aren't really appropriate for inclusion in
> a document (e.g. references to what "Tim wants", etc.).

that's right Graham, sorry for that
so what about following sentences

Using RDF, 'received meaning' can be characterized
as the social meaning of any logical consequences.

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.

Human publishers of RDF content commit themselves
to the mechanically-inferred social obligations.

The machines doing the inferences aren't expected
to know what all those social conventions/obligations
are about.

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 29 July 2002 06:46:38 UTC

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