Re: SW, meaning and reference

From: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>

> [[
> ...
> Before I could start on that project, however, there was a prior question
> to be confronted. If the goal was to produce a correct theory of
reference, I would have to
> get clear on what it is that makes a theory of reference correct or
> incorrect. What exactly are the facts that a correct theory of reference
is supposed
> to capture? And how can we find out whether a theory has succeeded in
> capturing those facts?

The more agents can meet their goals using a theory of reference, the more
"correct" that  theory is.

> While I could imagine someone setting out to redescribe URIs in terms of
> an initial 'GroundingEvent' or 'NamingEvent', and (say) a
> causal-historical account of naming, I wouldn't join a W3C Working Group
> attempting such a thing if you paid me! Meanwhile, as you say, ecommerce
> will surely happen regardless. So I'm not spreading doom and gloom; just
> claiming that reference is the weak spot when we come to formalise the
> 'semantic' web.

Why formalize it at all ?  Why not just start making mechinisms that work ..
may the best theory win.

Logic is great, survival better :)

Seth Russell