W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: Social Meaning Boston 6 March

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 18:48:38 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 05:17 PM 2/18/03 +0000, Brian McBride wrote:
>At 11:16 18/02/2003 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>At 10:43 PM 2/13/03 +0000, Brian McBride wrote:
>>>At 21:32 13/02/2003 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>>>I am posting this message to three lists, sorry for duplicate copies.
>>>>There has been a significant discussion on the social meaning
>>>>parts of the RDF Concepts Last Call.
>>>Really!  Where?
>>There's been some discussion on WebOnt, starting here:
>>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0280.html
>>Also, it doesn't count as discussion, but I indicated a position here:
>>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0228.html
>>But I'll agree with you that there's not yet been sufficient discussion 
>>to see where this is going.
>Thanks Graham, the pointers were very useful.
>Jeremy is suggesting - lets see if we can find a form of words that 
>satisfies everyone.  I'm hoping that doesn't mean fudging the issue.  I'm 
>also very concerned that you won't be present if there is a f2f discussion 
>at the tech plenary.  Maybe we should be thinking about dialing you in?
>I'm also wondering about laying some of the groundwork.  I'm seeing a lot 
>of very unstructured discussion, and I fear there is great risk of 
>confusion clouding the discussion.
>Do you and Jeremy have any ideas on how we might best prepare/clarify the 

I don't think we need to compromise anything here -- I think most of the 
concerns expressed have been concerns of the WG, and the problem has been 
in the explanation.  In hindsight, I think the example we used has not been 
helpful, and I'd like to drop it.

Here are some thoughts I have:

I think the issue of social meaning is poorly handled, and needs to be 
improved.  I think the main point we need to convey here is that there may 
be social meaning associated with some RDF that is opaque to automated 
reasoning processes.  The secondary point is that such meaning may be 
embodied in some collection of RDF statements, and those statements may be 
obtained by application of a logically valid reasoning process.  But there 
is no intent that RDF agents somehow need to be aware of the social meaning.

There is a separate issue of how a URI gains its meaning, which I think 
should be handled separately.


Graham Klyne
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2003 14:09:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:20 UTC