- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 10:54:10 +0000
- To: "Peter Crowther" <Peter.Crowther@networkinference.com>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
- Cc: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Peter, Your endorsement of this comment has been recorded at: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-14 RDFCore will respond in due course. Brian At 11:24 17/02/2003 +0000, Peter Crowther wrote: > > From: Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com] > > To: Jeremy Carroll; www-webont-wg@w3.org >[...] > > Assuming this WG is not going to endorse Peter's comment > > [[1]] > >I'd endorse that personally and, as the AC rep for Network Inference, >would be likely to vote against RDF simply because of this flaw. Social >meaning is not something that a spec can influence, or should attempt to >influence; that is up to the courts and the governments of our existing >legal structures, not to W3C. I think it is hubris to believe anything >else, and that kismet will swiftly follow due to the non-deployment of >RDF. Certainly I would recommend to my colleagues, business partners >and clients that they remove all existing use of RDF from their >organisations forthwith, as its legal status was insufficiently clear as >a consequence of the new standard. This would include other W3C >standards that use RDF, such as RSS --- who knows what 'social meaning' >might be carried by an RSS feed? > >OWL is another matter, but I would recommend that the XML encoding of >OWL be used rather than the RDF encoding. > >Could I also point to my comment [2] on www-webont-wg about translators >and the lack of clear responsibility for the social meaning of the >translated RDF? Reproduced below: > >-- snip -- > >Here's another interesting one, by the way, more related to >rdfms-assertion; I'm not sure what to make of this. Consider a variant >of the UMD DAML+OIL to OWL translator that takes DAML+OIL and/or KRSS as >input and that produces OWL[/RDF] output. Consider further that it is >accessible via a HTTP GET and can translate DAML+OIL and KRSS that it >can retrieve by URL - so there is a unique URL for its OWL translation >of some non-OWL (and, indeed, non-RDF) input. Consider further that >some public-spirited soul makes this available as a service on their Web >site. Who is responsible for the 'social meaning' of the produced (and >effectively published) OWL? The author of the original document, >despite the fact that they wrote in a formalism that didn't have this >burden? The operator of the translation service, despite the fact that >they have no control over the data on which it is used? > >-- snip -- > > >My own proposal would be to state that publishers of RDF SHOULD state >the legal framework under which they are publishing that RDF, and that >it is up to consumers of that RDF to determine whether they then want to >use it. This may push the problem of an agent trying to determine >whether it should trust content from the agent being required to >understand the free text (in any language) inside each comment to the >agent being required to understand the legal ramifications of a single >statement of framework (in any language). > >[1] >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0192.htm >l > >[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0310.html
Received on Saturday, 1 March 2003 05:53:07 UTC