- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:12:52 -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: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:59:39 +0100 > > [...] > > >> which can be proof checked > >> the rdfs:comment remains opaque, we just have the reason > > > >In this case the social meaning is supposed to come from a natural langauge > >rdfs:comment, so you can proof check back to the rdfs:comment. However, > >this doesn't get you anywhere close to the social meaning. How are you > >going to get there? > > > >Also, what if the social meaning comes from an XML comment? What if it > >comes from something not on the web at all? > > well right, no answers, remember > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0297.html > [[[ > The point is also that we cannot use a single notion of > 'meaning' to say this properly, since of course the formal > entailments cannot themselves utilize the social aspects > of meaning which are included in *informal* aspects of the > publication, such as in a comment which is opaque to any > likely RDF inference engine or machine processor. Social > meanings can be, as it were, transferred or carried by > formal entailments, but they cannot be incorporated into > the formal entailments. > ]]] > > -- , > Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ So, in other words, social meaning cannot even be proof checked, not even just to the point of getting to a natural language string that might carry the social meaning. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research Lucent Technologies
Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2003 19:13:04 UTC