W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > May 2003

RE: exploring ambiguity via the "something-which-has" URI scheme

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 13:33:50 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B5FBBC2@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: <GK@ninebynine.org>, <uri@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext pat hayes [mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu]
> Sent: 08 May, 2003 18:53
> To: Sandro Hawke
> Cc: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); GK@ninebynine.org; uri@w3.org
> Subject: Re: exploring ambiguity via the "something-which-has" URI
> scheme
> 
> 
> >  > Even if, according to the MT, the denotation/interpretation of a
> >>  given URI may differ, what counts for the SW is that those
> >>  denotations/interpretations be compatible.
> >>
> >>  Incompatible denotations/interpretations are what harm the SW.
> 
> Just for the record, this is nonsense as stated.  One wouldn't expect 
> that two different interpretations would be compatible.  What I think 
> Patrick meant is that incompatible ASSERTIONS are what harm the SW. 
> That is debateable, but at least it makes sense.

No. That's not what I meant (at least I don't think so ;-)

If there could not be incompatible assertions, then there could be
no disagreement, and I think the SW should allow folks to disagree
about the things that they are talking about in common.

Rather, if there is to be disagreement, if assertions are to be
incompatible, then it must be the case that they are about the
same thing. 

What is harmful to the SW is when folks make assertions which 
appear to be about the same thing, but are not.

Patrick
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 06:33:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:31 GMT