Re: RDF Issue rdfms-assertion

Going over old mail I find yours and apologize for having missed it
during the summer.

I am happy that the issue has been addressed.

I note that the primacy of the predicate in determining the meaning has 
not been
mentioned.

I am happy that the issue was addressed to the point that one
can argue that an RDF document has meaning, and the meaning is the 
conjunction
of the meaning of the statements.

Under the rubrick of picking my battles, I'll let this one go.

Tim

On Thursday, August 29, 2002, at 01:41 PM, Brian McBride wrote:

> _________-
> From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> Date: Thu Aug 29, 2002  01:41:39 PM US/Eastern
> To: connolly@w3.org, timbl@w3.org
> Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RDF Issue rdfms-assertion
>
> Dan, Tim,
> In
>
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-
> comments/2001JanMar/0077.html
>
> you raised an issue which was captured in
>
>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-assertion
>
> as
>
> [[[
> RDF is not just a data model. The RDF specs should define a semantics 
> so that an RDF statement on the web is interpreted as an assertion of 
> that statement such that its author would be responsible in law as if 
> it had been published in, say, a newspaper.
> ]]]
>
> As recorded in
>
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0224.html
>
> the RDFCore WG has resolved this issue as follows:
>
> that the text in section 2.3.2 of the Concepts and Abstract Data
> Model document resolves this issue and it be closed.
>
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Aug/0003.html
>
> Please could you respond to this message, copying www-rdf-
> comments@w3.org indicating whether this is an acceptable resolution of 
> this issue.
>
> Brian McBride
> RDFCore co-chair

Received on Monday, 16 September 2002 08:06:53 UTC