W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sw-meaning@w3.org > October 2003

Re: what matters is what's said, not what's meant

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 18:55:18 -0500
Message-Id: <p06001f1cbbaba5ab2623@[]>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org

>  > I fail to see how requiring uses to be logically consistent with privileged
>>  prior uses is significantly better than use implying consent (read import
>>  here if you like) to privileged prior uses.  In my opinion it is generally
>>  the case that if you don't want to disagree with privileged prior use then
>>  you want to consent to this previous prior use.
>I think there's a big middle ground which switches sides between these
>two options.   To take the running-code example I posted earlier,
>requiring consistency just means
>      :Coconut a bio:Cat, bio:Dog
>would be flagged as web-inconsistent (assuming bio says Cat and Dog
>are disjoint), but it does not mean anything for querying systems.  It
>doesn't mean you have to give --closure=po or anything.  It makes this
>whole following links thing stay optional in querying, and only be
>mandated (more or less) in consistency/error checking.
>>  To pick on my favourite example, if I want to discuss a particular invoice
>>  and I don't disagree with the statements about that invoice made by the
>>  creator of that invoice, say for example to claim that the invoice is
>>  invalid in some way, then I almost always want to consent to these
>>  statements.
>I would approach that problem with some kind of scare-quotes.

Or - I hesitate to even mention this - with reification?

IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 9 October 2003 19:55:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:01 UTC