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

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

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 21:27:55 -0400
Cc: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, public-sw-meaning@w3.org
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F94F58A3-FAC0-11D7-82AF-0003936A0B26@isr.umd.edu>

On Thursday, October 9, 2003, at 08:47 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> While I agree with that, it doesn't help with my original concern,
> which is how the use of a particular URI in an RDF graph affects how a
> receiver of that graph might behave.  If imagine you say to me (in the
> document "pat"):
>      pat:Donny a bio:Dingo.
>      pat:Donny a bio:Cat.
> I might well follow the bio link, and while I'll be nice and not hold
> you to everything bio says, ... what should I make of the fact that
> you've said Donny is an instance of two disjoint classes?

What *can* you make? Perhaps that I think they're not disjoint? Perhaps 
pat:Donny is a chimera and has mixed cells? Perhaps I'm just unsure?

> Hrm.
> Neither "pat" nor "bio" is inconsistent, but the combined set is
> (assuming OWL semantics and that bio really used OWL).

Yes. One issue is what else have I said about bio:Dingo and bio:Cat. 
(e.g., if I say that pat:DingoCatMules  sameClass intersectionOf 
bio:Dingo and bio:Cat, I seem to be saying that bio got it wrong.)

> It seems to me that as a reader I'm not going to be too happy with
> this graph you sent me.  What have I really learned from you about
> pat:Donny?  What can I do with what you said?  Not a lot, I think.
> Ewwww.


> So working back, I end up saying you SHOULD NOT say things like that,
> and MUST NOT do so knowingly.

Piffle. Why project your fears and insecurity onto specs? If you don't 
like it, communicate with your partners. You're free to say, "That way 
of saying this irritates me. I'm avoiding that"

Plus, perhaps bio is just plain wrong. Or silly. Them being owners of 
the URI doesn't help them epistemically, overall. It may not even help 
them wrt to their own intended (or achieved) meaning.

Even if so, it doesn't necessarily help them with what they *should* 
have meant.

Bijan Parsia.
Received on Thursday, 9 October 2003 21:34:10 UTC

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