- From: Lynn Andrea Stein <lynn.stein@olin.edu>
- Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 10:27:49 -0400
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- CC: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Hmmmm.....I am not concerned with what lawyers think. I am concerned with Tim's statement that the *meaning* of an RDF assertion that *I* make is necessarily controlled by the *owner*of*the*URI* for the predicate I am using. (Note that this is in direct contrast to Graham's suggestion, below.) Since Tim is proposing that this requirement should be part of the RDF Core spec, I think that it *is* an RDF Core issue. I think that there *must* be some way for the meaning of a predicate (or an assertion) to be separated from the control of a single person or URI-owner. Graham Klyne wrote: > I would expect that the claimed meaning of a URI that is supported by a > community of practice (e.g. one defined by W3C) would carry more legal > weight than one used by a single individual (e.g. a web trader's private > definition). > > (+usual disclaimer about not being a lawyer) > > [Hmmm: where does this discussion belong? It's surely not logic, and only > weakly related to RDFcore, I think. I've copied rdf-logic because that's > where the participants seem to be living.] > > #g > > At 05:46 PM 5/29/02 -0400, Lynn Andrea Stein wrote: > >Yes, but the difference is that in "normal" parlance terms are defined by > >communities of practice. (One can argue about what the community uses a > >term to mean, or about what community the term was used with respect to, > >but there's no one definitive source for THE MEANING of the term other > >than the community.) In contrast, you have suggested that authority to > >define the meaning of an RDF predicate IN FACT vests with the owner of the > >URL. > > ------------------- > Graham Klyne > <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 10:28:32 UTC