- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:13:39 +0100
- To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Cc: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> 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 would expect the WG to reject a form of words that satisfied everyone but fudged the issue. I hope *I* would not be satisified with a fudge. I see the editorial task here as expressing the WG intent in such a way as to avoid any unnecessary opposition. I believe this intent is reasonably clear: a) RDF has meaning that relates to the relate world. b) This meaning is preserved under formal entailments. c) This meaning should be socially enforceable in the same way as the meaning of other languages that relate to the real world (e.g. English). d) The document section should be normative. e) The use of a word like "legal" is strongly preferred. At this stage the only one of those that I think might be appropriate to fudge is (e) if words like "socially enforceable" can be made to carry more weight. It may be beneficial to slightly fudge (b) by suggesting that contracts underpinning multiparty systems that use RDF might specify which formal system of entailments is intended (e.g. RDF entailments, RDFS entailments or OWL entailments); I don't believe the WG ever reached closure on the interaction between semantic extensions and social meaning. Jeremy
Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 05:14:00 UTC