- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:05:54 +0000
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Looking at my msg which Pat is replying to, I think I had better disown it! I have found Bijan's comment a fairly thorough demolition job - and the question is: Is there anything worth salvaging from the rubble? Bijan even makes good arguments against the formal entailments being somehow mandatory. (c) below. See: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/meetings/tech-200303/social-meaning#fish http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/meetings/tech-200303/social-meaning#meccano Jeremy pat hayes wrote: >> > 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
Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 05:06:24 UTC