- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:53:36 +0000
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
I agree that the description of social meaning issues is not currently well-handled. Brian, I think this comment may be dealt with under the same issue that is raised by Peter Patel-Schneider's comments relating to "social meaning". I trust your judgement whether to treat this as the same or separate issue. #g -- At 05:17 PM 2/20/03 -0500, Jim Hendler wrote: >------------------------------------------- >WOWG comments on the RDF Concepts Document >-------------------------------------------- > >We believe the RDF Concepts Document is a useful document and helpful in >understanding RDF and its use. However, out Working Group did have some >concerns with respect to the issue of social meaning as discussed in this >document. > >The Web Ontology WG has mixed views on this issue and could not agree on a >specific consensus response in the time available. However, we note that >a number of participants in the Web Ontology WG have serious reservations >about the RDF view on the social meaning of RDF. > >We did reach consensus to request that the wording in the RDF Schema and >the RDF Concepts documents be rephrased to explain this issue, and >particularly its impact, more clearly, as this has ramifications on other >languages, such as OWL, which are extensions to RDF. ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Friday, 21 February 2003 13:06:37 UTC