Issue name: 008-InteractionUnclear

Interaction between social and formal meanings is unclear

Raised by:
Dave Reynolds
Raised on:
Raised in message:
Target document section reference(s):
Last updated:
Graham Klyne


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


2002-09-09: Raised


Need to clarify text dealing with interaction between social and formal meaning, particularly with respect to mechanical inferences.

2002-09-10: Assigned

[GK] This text is earmarked for reworking.

2002-09-10: Comment


Try and use Pat Hayes' text and example to illustrate this more clearly (but changing the subject matter to reduce any possibility of offence).

2002-09-30: Response

See: 013-Various.html

Section 2.3 has been extensively re-worked, incorporating comments from Pat Hayes and Tim Berners-Lee.

2002-10-25: Closed


Comments accounted for in publicly accessible reworked document.