Interaction between social and formal meanings is unclear
Section 2.3.3 is unclear. In particular the statement: "Human publishers of RDF content commit themselves to the mechanically-inferred social obligations." needs greater clarification. Is the mechanical inference referred to here solely RDF entailment from the asserted graph G (as implied by the context of the preceding paragraph)? If so, that is reasonable since the space of RDF entailments is so limited. However, without clarification the phrase might be construed to also refer to entailment based on G together with graphs asserted elsewhere or to the sort of deduction discussed in the subsequent paragraphs with its mix of social and logical dimensions and not-demonstrably-valid implementations - that would not be reasonable! Section 2.3.2 is also a little problematic in the light of 2.3.3 in that the "combination of social and technical machinery" for distinguishing assertions from "other uses (e.g. citations, denials or illustrations)" is not actually defined anywhere which makes "mechanically-inferred social obligations" extra worrying.
Need to clarify text dealing with interaction between social and formal meaning, particularly with respect to mechanical inferences.
[GK] This text is earmarked for reworking.
Try and use Pat Hayes' text and example to illustrate this more clearly (but changing the subject matter to reduce any possibility of offence).
Section 2.3 has been extensively re-worked, incorporating comments from Pat Hayes and Tim Berners-Lee.
Comments accounted for in publicly accessible reworked document.