Re: WebOnt response to RDF docs (was Re: LANG: need to CLOSE Issue 5.6 Imports as magic syntax)

RDF Core is just about to publish a new version of this doc.
I suggest review effort at this stage is somewhat misspent, but would be 
better after publication.

The section that is causing people grief is being actively edited - we are 
trying to end up with something reasonable, needless to say. There is a 
need that when you say something in RDF, you really have said something, 
and the bits about how that interacts with saying something with terms that 
are under other people's control is clearly tricky.

This section is intended to, in the final analysis, help the courts to 
enforce contracts made using RDF expressions. I suspect we will be in need 
of help.


Jim Hendler wrote:

> At 10:04 AM -0500 10/30/02, Jeff Heflin wrote:
>> Thanks for pointing this out, Peter:
>> A particulary scary passage is from Section 2.3.3:
>> Human publishers of RDF content commit themselves to the
>> mechanically-inferred social obligations. The machines doing the
>> inferences aren't expected to know about all these social conventions
>> and          obligations.
>> The social conventions used to interpret a graph may include assumed
>> truths, for which no logical derivation is available, and socially
>> accepted consequences whose rules of deduction are embedded in arbitrary
>> decision-making processes.
>> Semantic web vocabulary gains currency through use, so also do semantic
>> web deductions have force through social acceptance. Semantic web
>> deduction operates in a combination of logical and social (non-logical)
>> dimensions.
>> They seem to be saying they don't want RDF to be used by agents, because
>> agents cannot possibly know these socially accepted consequences and
>> thus cannot make any rational decisions on the behalf of users. If this
>> is the W3C's vision of the Semantic Web then we may as well just shut
>> down the WG and go home, cause it is doomed to failure.
>> Jeff
> I was getting ready to send a reply to Jeff (don't think this is what 
> the RDF folks mean), but then realized that this is not the place for it 
> - that discussion should go to RDF-logic.  Please keep this discussion 
> focused on ONLY those aspects of RDF that directly and materially effect 
> language features of OWL.
> However, I do believe that Peter and Jeff are suggesting that we might 
> consider a WG response to some particular RDF document (I'm actually not 
> quite sure which).  It would certainly not be a bad thing for our WG to 
> do this.  If someone wants to volunteer to read the appropriate document 
> and draft a review, this would be great. Remember, process would be 
> editor drafts a response,  this is discussed in the WG and, if we reach 
> consensus on the response, send it in the WG's name to RDF Core.  We did 
> this once before (our response to RDFS) and it is an approved (And 
> encouraged) aspect of WG interaction.
>  -JH

Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2002 16:36:09 UTC