W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > June 2008

RE: PDF file conundrum / A way to think about IRs

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:22:45 -0500
Message-Id: <p0623090cc4856204c692@[10.100.0.11]>
To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
Cc: 'Jonathan Rees' <jar@creativecommons.org>, "public-awwsw@w3.org" <public-awwsw@w3.org>

At 1:06 PM +0000 6/23/08, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote:
>  > From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@ihmc.us]
>>
>>  >      From: David Booth
>>  >      ....
>>  >      Now, for a given entity, let's suppose we have decided
>>  >      how we choose to think of it and consider the three possibilities:
>>  >
>>  >      1. the entity does not have the characteristics of an
>>  >      IR.  It is lacking at least one characteristic of an IR.
>>  >
>>  >      2. the entity has all of the characteristics of an IR,
>>  >      but it also has other characteristics.
>>  >
>>  >      3. the entity has exactly the characteristics of an IR
>>  >      and no more.
>>
>>
>>  I don't think this makes sense. Nothing, except a
>>  mathematical abstraction defined by axioms (group,
>>  commutative algebra, set, etc.) has some exact list of
>>  characteristics and no others at all.
>
>It *would* be a mathematical abstraction in that case.  Why do you
>say it doesn't make sense for it to be a mathematical abstraction?

Oh, well thats OK then. I guess I was assuming that IRs were intended 
to be actual things in the world.

Pat

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes      phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
http://www.flickr.com/pathayes/collections
Received on Monday, 23 June 2008 14:23:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 July 2008 07:55:28 GMT