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

Re: Concepts doc review (legal review)

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 17:10:20 +0000 (GMT)
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
cc: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0301061708250.28405-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Dan Connolly wrote:

> On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 10:28, Jan Grant wrote:
> [...]
> > - Be really bloody careful here. Libel law (in the UK at least) does not
> > 	observe the de re/de dicto distinction; publishing a libellous
> > 	statement with qualifications or in quotes may constitute libel
> > 	itself. Don't write anything that might be construed as quasi-
> > 	legal advice into something published by the W3C (or get
> > 	someone with a legal head to check it first).
> I got a lawyer (Danny W.) to look at the concepts stuff a while
> back; he was OK with the legal stuff there.
> I'm pretty sure I sent mail to the WG saying so...
> darn; searching for the keywords I think I would have
> used (Weitzner, rdfms-assertion) suggests I didn't.
> I haven't seen any changes that suggest he should look at
> it again, though I haven't been following very closely.
> But I'm fairly confident we're OK here.
> EricM, if you're not, please get Danny to review it
> again after last call.

To be clear, my concern is not over the legal accuracy of the
statements, just that it can't be construed as offering legal advice
(the US is notoriously litigious).


jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/
Q: What's yellow and equivalent to the axiom of choice? A: Zorn's lemon.
Received on Monday, 6 January 2003 12:13:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:19 UTC