- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 12:56:26 +0100
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Noting your ongoing debate, I wondered if something that Dan said [1] might be a bridge to useful progress... At 17:51 16/07/03 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: >Well, it's pretty close... try taking 'identify' to mean >"denote in many/most useful interpretations". and ... At 23:34 17/07/03 -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: >Example1. > >A dog bounds into the room. Tim says, "Here, Fido!" to the dog, and says >"Pat, meet my dog, Fido" to Pat. Tim plays with th edog. Tim asks Pat, >"Pat, would please take Fido for a walk?" >Pat takes the dog for a walk. The name seems to have been unambiguously >associated with te same dog in both there minds. I think the point here is that the name here is associated with something in each mind similar enough that doing the action of "taking it for a walk" has the same observable outcome. Fido might be interpreted to denote the dog, or to denote a collection of fleas that live on the dog, but to take "Fido" for a walk amounts to the same thing. #g -- [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0159.html ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Friday, 18 July 2003 08:21:25 UTC