W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2003

Re: Arch Doc: 23 June 2003 Editor's Draft (equivalence -> coreference)

From: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 20:06:53 -0400
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-id: <00b901c33aad$b048a550$0902a8c0@Walden>

Dan,

From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=equivalent,

1.
     a. Equal, as in value, force or meaning.
     b. Having similar or identical effects.

Two URI that identify the same resource would seem to have equal
meaning and identical effects.  The dictionary seems to establish a shade
of difference between equivalence and equality, where equivalence is
less direct (e.g., above, and others at the referenced page, including
math, chemistry and logic meanings).

Grammatially, how does one use "coreference" in a sentence?

E.g. 1: URI[x] is a coreference with URI[y]?
E.g. 2: URI[x] coreferences URI[y]?
E.g. 3: URI[x] is a coreferent of URI[y]?
E.g. 4: URI[x] and URI[y] corefer to ...

1. Seems weak.
2. suggests x is the reference and y the referent, which is wrong.
3. this suggests y references x, again wrong.
4. forces you to name the referent, which is hard without
    mentioning the URI again.

How do you do it?

--Walden


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: Arch Doc: 23 June 2003 Editor's Draft (equivalence ->
coreference)


>
> On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 13:52, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > The 23 June 2003 Editor's Draft of "Architecture of
> > the World Wide Web" [1] is now available.
> [...]
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030623
>
> -- 2.1. Comparing Identifiers
>
> I'm still not comfortable with the phrase "URI equivalence";
> it suggests that it's a property of the URIs themselves.
> But's more a property of how they're bound to resources.
> Hmm... co-reference is a term I'm comfortable with for
> this notion; is it widely understood?
>
> google leads me to the sort of linguistic definition
> I'd expect...
>
http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsCoreference.htm
>
> ah... it's also in the ordinary dictionary
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=coreference
>
> Let's do change "equivalence" to "coreference".
>
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2003 20:07:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:38 UTC