- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 17:42:11 -0500
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
>On Jun 2, 2004, at 9:13 AM, John Black wrote: >[snip] >>But my real point is the symmetry between correct publishing behavior >>and correct interpreting behavior. >> >>So lets change the scene a little: >[snipped silly caricature that not only makes Peter and me out to be >Machiavellian morons, but doesn't even vaguely hook up to anything >we've said] > >You might take a little time to edit your posts before sending them. >Restating an example you just posted not a full day before, only >this time incorporating your interlocutors in a fairly derogatory >way and yet not otherwise augmenting or elaborating the example is >just a waste. > >>The point is that there are use cases where it would be critical >>that an interpreting agent be required to discover and report >>the actual meaning of a set of published documents. And this >>might be aided by giving URI authors facilities to specify what >>that meaning is. > >We author documents, not URIs. > >I want my documents to be largely under my control. I prepared for >some leeway in interpretation (e.g., looking at a document purely as >well formed XML rather than as the particular PSVI I intended), but >I don't think that every use of a URI in document *content* should >give that URIs owner licence to insert whatever into my document. >I'm not adverse to that entirely, obviously, since this pretty much >is what owl:imports gives me. > >It's like the difference between an <a href=.. and an <img src... >You don't always want transclusion. > >None of this has a WHIT to do with some intermediary inserting or >altering content "for my own good". Nothing. Nothing at all. Not >even a little. Let go, ok? You are telling us to let go? Maybe if you guys hadn't started off using paranoid language like 'totalitarian', '1984' and so on, we would all be able to have had a more rational discussion in the first place. It seems to me that this entire thread is completely pointless and is discussing a non-issue. If you want to be absolutely in control, and are more worried about being misrepresented than in communication, then indeed your recommended course of action may be wise. If you really don't want anyone else to have any control over what your documents say, don't use imports. If you want to have total control over what appears on your screen, don't use a Web browser. If you want to be sure of never reading anything offensive, don't read anything. If you want to be absolutely sure of never being misunderstood, don't say anything. Fine. Now, can you let the rest of us normal people get on with talking to one another, and referring to one another, and importing one another's ontologies in peace, and just ignore you? Apparently you want to be ignored rather passionately. I'm perfectly happy to go along with that. Pat >There is an interesting question of what aggregators and other >republishers might reasonable want or be expected to do. But that is >a separate issue. > >Cheers, >Bijan Parsia. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Wednesday, 2 June 2004 18:42:13 UTC