- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:14:51 +0100
- To: patrick hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 11:55 PM 6/11/02 -0400, patrick hayes wrote: >.... The implication I draw is that I'm not hearing what you are meaning >to say, that we aren't communicating properly. (Since I know that quite a >lot of people are understanding this kind of talk in roughly the same way >I am, I would also suggest that there might be a wider breakdown of >communication.) Following this debate, it seems clear to me that there *is* miscommunication. I think there are at least three notions of "meaning" being kicked around here: - social meaning - the default English interpretation. Roughly, what Quine describes as truth of a statement that "a native is prepared to assent to". - RDF logical meaning - truths of RDF statements that are true by virtue of the specified semantics of RDF: truths that can be calculated by machines using only the rules set out in the RDF formal semantics specification. Again appealing to Quine: RDF statements that are true by virtue of their RDF-grammatical structure. - RDF received meaning - truths that are expressible in RDF, but that are grounded in socially normalized intended interpretations. If certain such truths are accepted as axioms, then the logical machinery of RDF allows other such truths to be deduced. I think this is the notion of meaning that Tim is trying to promote as "RDF meaning". #g (Hoping I've not merely added to the miscommunication.) ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 05:23:18 UTC