- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 18:27:16 +0100
- To: patrick hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, timbl@w3.org
At 12:03 PM 6/12/02 -0500, patrick hayes wrote: >[...] 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. Yes! (I omitted to mention the social meaning of logical consequences --or the logical consequences of social meaning-- but that is what I was pushing toward.) #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 13:24:10 UTC