W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Harvesting from Roy's paper

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 10:08:49 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=eWHyVMxarSbMVDtHtaQkeOpFwrD5GougwFyd1@mail.gmail.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> Jonathan Rees wrote:
>>
>> Blog post including this material:
>>
>> http://odontomachus.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/are-you-confused-yet-about-the-word-representation/
>
> :) the last one made me chuckle a bit!
>
> definitions I that "sit right" with me:

It's not a question of "sit right" generally, but specifically for
some articulated purpose. I have no trouble at all with an art
historian saying that a painting is a representation of a saint.
That's just a different sense of the word. The "hateful" thing is when
one person takes a statement made assuming one sense, then
reinterprets the statement with another sense for propaganda reasons.
For example, AWWW might be taken as using "representation" in Roy's
sense when actually it's using it in Tim's sense (although I admit you
have to read between the lines to infer that - really it may be
gingerly using it  in *neither* sense since the argument wasn't
resolved at the time of publication).

Both Roy and Tim would have done better to coin new words. I'm
experimenting with 'specialization' for Tim's sense, although even
that would be more a term of art than an adaptation of a common-sense
meaning.

Also as I said before it would be unfair to judge Roy's work as logic
or ontology. It's software architecture and should be judged as such.
Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 15:09:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 March 2011 15:09:22 GMT