- From: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 14:55:18 +0200
- To: "John Black" <JohnBlack@deltek.com>, "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>, "Damian Steer" <damian.steer@hp.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> > Essentially this is the same problem as agreeing on what any > > new term means - This is a late night email, so it may just be a good idea at the time thing. I think (but am not sure) that to enter a new definition or a word into the Oxford dictionary you need to simply prove its usage in three independent places. In other words usage creates a definition. theoretically we could go for that approach, were an otology has associated usage examples, (perhaps we can make an ontology for documenting and referencing usages of ontology - if there isn't one) and when enough usages are similar enough - we have a legitimate way of using a term. I am not at all sure we would want to do and end up in the same mess as natural language. However when referencing/ using a term one could also require referencing the usage associated with it. in the absence of the definition of usage we would be talking about primary usage only. Something like what i am suggesting for WCAG http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/natural-lang-20030326.html good night Lisa
Received on Tuesday, 3 August 2004 08:57:08 UTC