- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:24:03 +0100
- To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Jos, I like that... I've used that to improve and contract sections 2.3.3 and 2.3.4. Thanks! #g -- At 12:46 PM 7/29/02 +0200, Jos De_Roo wrote: >[...] > > > 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/ ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Monday, 29 July 2002 07:45:16 UTC