- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:53:50 +0200
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@intergraph.com>
- Cc: 'Jon Hanna' <jon@hackcraft.net>, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, skw@hp.com, jacek.kopecky@deri.org, <www-tag@w3.org>
On Friday, September 24, 2004, 12:09:51 AM, Claude wrote: BCLL> The definition is for a web resource. The other word senses aren't BCLL> applicable. That is why it is a weak theory. It isn't intended to BCLL> be a comprehensive ontology for the colloquialism. That is also BCLL> why 'on the web' has to be called 'colloquial' instead of a BCLL> formal term. Well put. BCLL> A hard and stubborn part of writing the BCLL> web arch doc and in fact, any specification or standard is BCLL> to "conserve nouns" as Goldfarb said, to reduce misinterpretation. BCLL> It is similar to formal ontology work in that respect. Ontologies BCLL> are theories. Ontological commitment as defined by Gruber means BCLL> committing to a theory or word sense, typically, with a means to BCLL> verify the commitment through a testable property. What has BCLL> been pointed out several times by several individuals is that BCLL> the term 'web resource' is testable. So, this is a good term BCLL> for the formal set of web architecture terms. Yes. BCLL> Try to conceive of a test for 'information space'. Well, one can, with the drawback that everything tested passes. So its not usefully testable. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Friday, 24 September 2004 13:53:51 UTC