At 18:17 -0400 6/10/04, John Black wrote: >So here is what it looks like to me. > >A general purpose communication system, where: > >There is no standard way to tell who is making statements. > >There is no standard way to tell whether whoever is doing it is >asserting, denying, quoting, or just experimenting with those >statements. > >Its a new, artificial language but there is no standard way for >fixing or learning the intended interpretation of its terms, URIrefs. > >URIrefs, most of which look just like URLs, are to be treated as >strings bearing no standard relation to the URLs they look >like, or to anything that might be done with them on the web. > >You can reason over it, but everything stated is considered true, >and there is no standard way for anything to be unsaid. > >And the people that would need to be involved to develop some >plain old-fashioned standard language pragmatics[1,2] are either >firmly against it or are too busy out writing code with it to >bother. > >Do I understand this correctly? > > >[1] The Semantics-Pragmatics Distinction >http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~kbach/semprag.html >[2] Pragmatics of the Semantic Web >http://semanticweb2002.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/proceedings/Position/kim.pdf > Yup, I think you got it -- just like the real world! -- Professor James Hendler http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 240-277-3388 (Cell)Received on Thursday, 10 June 2004 18:24:35 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:16 GMT