W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2012

Re: issue-57 background reading for F2F (short required reading)

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 17:27:37 -0400
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <1349299657.1975.5734.camel@dbooth-laptop>
On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 15:42 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 10/3/12 2:54 PM, David Booth wrote:
> > 1. Ambiguity is a fact of life.  In spite of the AWWW's
> > statement that "By design, a URI identifies one resource",
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#id-resources  ambiguity of
> > reference is inescapable.  This is well established in
> > philosophy, and basically boils down to the fact that when
> > descriptions are used to define things, it is always possible
> > to make finer distinctions than a description anticipated.
> Are we still using "identifies" when denotes appears to be much clearer 
> re. this particular matter?

FWIW, I agree that "denotes" is better than "identifies".

David Booth, Ph.D.

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 21:28:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 3 October 2012 21:28:05 GMT