- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:20:59 -0600
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: 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: The intent is OK, but the words are still giving trouble. > >a) RDF has meaning that relates to the relate world. Obviously that is our *intent*, but it smacks of hubris (to put it mildly) to come across as asserting this as though our asserting it made it so. Lets be very careful, when saying things like this, to emphasis that this is an expression of our *intent* for how RDF will be used. >b) This meaning is preserved under formal entailments. This I think we can say pretty strongly, in a form that nobody can complain about, by saying that if any kind of meaning which extends the formal meaning is attributed to RDF, then we can guarantee that no valid RDF reasoner will do anything to the RDF which would alter or change that attribution of meaning. From which it follows that if anyone uses a notion of meaning which can be altered by a valid RDF reasoner, then they are going outside the normative spec. >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). Who are we to say this? Even as a statement of intent? I think this is what Peter and others are complaining about, it sounds like we are expressing a view here about the way that the world should be organized. Its none of our business. >d) The document section should be normative. >e) The use of a word like "legal" is strongly preferred. I would disagree, I think that this is what has cased all the trouble, and we don't need to get into legal issues. And we aren't competent to get into them, either. > >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. I think that it is ridiculous to even set out to assert things like (c). Is deletion a kind of fudging? > >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. Never mind closure, I don't think we have even started to tackle this issue. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 20:21:04 UTC