- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:31:15 +0000
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Responding to: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Nov/0526.html At 07:55 PM 11/21/02 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >The key problem here is that the issue resolution really only talks about a >single RDF document making an assertion. >The editors have bravely tried to extend this issue resolution to multiple >related independently authored RDF documents which when combined have >slanderous entailment. >(See particularly: >http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-concepts-20021108/#section-InteractionExamp >le >) > >To make that work then the idea of a URI owner is needed, and this idea >seems, somewhat problematic. > >However, a single document is hardly a semantic web! >And without text such as that I am questioning, we could end up with the >situation where in the clown example none of the original authors are liable >but someone who sucks up that part of the semantic web and spits it out as a >single document then has a legal liability! Separately from the original comment... I think RDG core is about RDF graphs. There are any number of conventions, some social, some technical, that might apply for constructing graphs from documents. I thought we weren't ready to nail those down. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 09:36:30 UTC