- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:19:50 -0500 (EST)
- To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov> Subject: Re: issues to be resolved before last call (rdfms-assertion) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:35:07 -0500 (EST) > > > Peter Patel-Schneider wrote concerning the issue of > "social 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? > > Is this refering to the Clown example in 2.4.3.1 of the Nov 8 version of > the RDF Concepts document? The initial reference was to something in > section 4.5 of the concepts document, but I found no example there at > all. > > -Evan > You may need to look at the LCC version of the RDF Concepts document. A pointer is on the RDF Core WG home page. peter
Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2003 13:20:05 UTC