- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:24:16 -0400
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com>
- CC: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Graham-- This text is OK with me. One nit: substitute "denials" for "denals" in > (e.g. citations, denals or illustrations). --Frank Graham Klyne wrote: > > Frank, > > OK, I think I've now got something closer to what you're suggesting. My > proposed section 2.3.2 now looks like this (specifically, the first 3 > paragraphs). > > [[ > 2.3.2 Social meaning > > RDF/XML documents, i.e. encodings of RDF graphs, can be used to make > representations of claims or assertions about the 'real' world. But > not every RDF/XML document does so. > > While the formal semantics of an RDF statement (triple) is that of a > distinct assertion, individual RDF statements may convey meaning that > is partly determined by the circumstances in which they are used. For > example, in English, a statement "I don't believe that George is a > clown" contains the words "George is a clown", which, considered in > isolation, have the form of an assertion that George exhibits certain > comic qualities. However, considering the whole sentence, no such > assertion is considered to be made. > > Similarly, a collection of RDF statements having an assertional form > could be presented in a context that they are not understood to be > stating a truth. Thus, there is a distinction between RDF expressions > that are asserted, and those that are not. > > When an RDF graph is asserted in the web, its publisher is saying > something about their view of the world. Such an assertion should be > understood to carry the same social import and responsibilities as an > assertion in any other format. A combination of social (e.g. legal) and > technical machinery (protocols, file formats, publication frameworks) > provide the contexts that fix the intended meanings of the vocabulary > of some piece of RDF, and which distinguish assertions from other uses > (e.g. citations, denals or illustrations). > > The technical machinery includes protocols for transferring information > (e.g. HTTP, SMTP) and file formats for encapsulating and labelling > information (e.g. MIME, XML). A media type, application/rdf+xml [RDF- > MIME-TYPE] is being registered for indicating the use of RDF/XML as > distinct from some other XML that happens to look like RDF. Issuing an > HTTP GET request and obtaining data with a "200 OK" response code is a > technical indication that the received data was published at the > request URI; but data received with a "404 Not found" response cannot > be considered to be similarly published information. > > The social machinery includes the form of publication: publishing some > unqualified statements on one's World Wide Web home page would > generally be taken as an assertion of those statements. But publishing > the same statements with a qualification, such as "here are some common > myths", or as part of a rebuttal, would likely not be construed as an > assertion of the truth of those statements. Similar considerations > apply to the publication of assertions expressed in RDF. > > Noting that there is no single human opinion about the truth of some > statements, the graph may further contain commentary for human > interpreters to indicate the realm of human interpretation that should > be applied. This means a graph may contain "defining information" that > is opaque to logical reasoners. This information may be used by human > interpreters of RDF information, or programmers writing software to > perform specialized forms of deduction in the Semantic Web. > > When a user invokes an application that uses RDF, there is also a > social and technical context of invocation that determines some set of > RDF assertions that will be assumed to be true: the application itself, > and any RDF files that are passed to it. Garbage-in, garbage-out > applies: if the initial assumed facts are wrong or meaningless, the > results will have little value. No specific mechanisms for deciding or > evaluating the validity of any such assertions are defined here. > ]] > -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-8752
Received on Tuesday, 22 October 2002 14:28:09 UTC