- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 16:03:56 -0500 (EST)
- To: jos.deroo@agfa.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com> Subject: Re: issues to be resolved before last call (rdfms-assertion) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 13:42:20 +0100 > > > > > > I think there are other points and I'm borrowing the > > > > > following from Pat as I couldn't express it better... > > > > > > > > > > The point is that publication of RDF, when considered > > > > > as a social act, constitutes a publication of some content > > > > > which is defined by whatever normal *social* conditions > > > > > are used by the publishers of any terms in the RDF to > > > > > define the meanings of those terms, even if those meanings > > > > > and definitions are not accessible to the formal semantics > > > > > of RDF; and, moreover, those meanings are *preserved* under > > > > > any formally sanctioned inference processes. [*] > > > > > > > > Here is the very, very scary part. Anyone publishing any RDF, even if the > > > > publishing is being done by an agent that only understands RDF formal > > > > meaning, is considered to import the entirely of the social meaning of a > > > > bunch of other RDF documents. How can any organization employ RDF agents > > > > under this extraordinarily strong reading of RDF meaning? > > > > > > such RDF meanings can always be be proved and explained back to > > > their roots and those are held responsible for what they assert! > > > (plus that making information explicit removes it from the context) > > > > Huh? How can they be *proved*? What system will do the proving? > > well, I should have said *proof checked* as the > formally sanctioned inference processes in above [*] > should generate/exchange their proofs Take a look at the example in RDF Concepts. The part that makes the connection is natural language. How are you going to proof check that? > > The example in RDF Concepts indicates that the agent that combines > > information is responsible for any consequences of the social meaning of > > whatever it combines, even if the agent has no possibility of understanding > > this social meaning. It appears to me, futhermore, that the source of > > this social meaning could be completely outside the World-Wide Web, even to > > the point of being in the mind of some deceased person. > > it is free to use any sources, but once it is asserting > them it should carry all consequences (in proof form) > what's so wrong with that? Well, how can you carry around a proof that refers to the contents of someone's mind, living or dead? If, instead, you want all consequences to be available from the source of a fact, then we are going to need much, much bigger disks. > Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research Lucent Technologies
Received on Sunday, 19 January 2003 16:04:07 UTC