- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 09:42:24 -0500
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 10:01 -0400, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 09:04 -0400, Jonathan Rees wrote: > >> OK, you've convinced me I'm so incompetent around "reference" that > >> I've completely removed it from my next draft (which I hope to have > >> ready by this afternoon, in time for review before tomorrow's call). > > > > Gee... I didn't think you were *that* far off... but this bit > > did go too far: > > > > | We'll suppose that (in any given conversation or context) a URI refers > > | to at most one Thing. > > > > A URI refers to at most one Thing in each FOL interpretation; in > > a typical conversation, it's roughly a zero probability event that both > > speakers have the same interpretation. (And even the interpretation > > of each speaker probably evolves over the course of a conversation.) > > I'm not sure I would like to confuse reference (something that happens > in the world) with interpretation (something that happens in model > theoretic computations on assertions). > > These are not the same sorts of things. Care to elaborate? It seems to me that they are exactly the same sorts of things. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 24 May 2010 14:40:56 UTC