Re: Social meaning discussion 6th March

Sans chapeau:

My bath time this morning was spent thinking about social meaning.  I came 
to the conclusion that 'meaning' is a difficult and slippery a concept that 
we should try to stay away from, sticking to things that are more 
concrete.  We should leave talk about 'meaning' to the 
philosophers.  Perhaps we can get all we need by describing intended use.

And then I see this is exactly what Jeremy has done in his draft 
alternative text.

   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/meetings/tech-200303/social-meaning

This is a significant shift in approach that may have considerable merit, 
and I wanted to draw attention to it.

The mininalist approach looks good too, though we might go a bit further:

   1 An RDF triple is intended to be used to represent an assertion
   2 A set of RDF triples is intended to be used to represent the 
conjunction of the assertions represented by each individual triple
   3 The assertion represented by an RDF triple is determined by the 
specifications of its subject, predicate and object.
   4 RDF triples representing false assertions SHOULD NOT be used to mislead.

The above being non-normative.

I'm not happy with 4.  RDF triples representing true assertions SHOULD NOT 
be used to mislead either, yet "RDF triples SHOULD NOT be used to mislead" 
is vacuous.  So maybe strike 4, though I'm inclined to leave it in.

Brian

At 00:02 27/02/2003 +0100, you wrote:

>BCC-ed to three groups, sorry for duplicates.
>
>I have put together a preliminary agenda for this session to be found at:
>
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/meetings/tech-200303/social-meaning
>
>Note I suggest reading the relevant text and Bijan's comments on it as
>prework.
>
>I would particularly welcome feedback if the list of issuettes is incomplete.
>(I have tried to include substantial concerns rather than ones that could be
>addressed by editorial changes).
>
>
>Jeremy

Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 05:33:57 UTC