- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 06:48:58 -0700
- To: Svgdeveloper@aol.com
- CC: tbray@textuality.com, www-tag@w3.org
Svgdeveloper@aol.com wrote: > >... > > I would like to ask TAG to consider the issue of whether the unqualified use > of the term "semantics" lacks clarity and is harmful to good communication > and W3C specification development. The W3C is not in the business of defining language except to unify it across specifications. Until there is a clash in the use of the term across specifications I don't think the TAG need get involved. They have enough on their plate already. > ... Since W3C is placing significant emphasis > on a "Semantic Web" clarity about which types of semantics are considered of > value seems important, not least in that strategic context. The "semantics" of the semantic web are defined here: * http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#model -- "When I walk on the floor for the final execution, I'll wear a denim suit. I'll walk in there like Willie Nelson, John Wayne, Will Smith -- Men in Black -- James Brown. Maybe do a Michael Jackson moonwalk." Congressman James Traficant.
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2002 09:51:52 UTC