W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > May 2010

Re: sketch of an exposition

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 10:01:03 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTil-wmDPysLaaNLoQcg5lSk2uY7Pdk9X2wCov0jU@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 09:04 -0400, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>> OK, you've convinced me I'm so incompetent around "reference" that
>> I've completely removed it from my next draft (which I hope to have
>> ready by this afternoon, in time for review before tomorrow's call).
> Gee... I didn't think you were *that* far off... but this bit
> did go too far:
> | We'll suppose that (in any given conversation or context) a URI refers
> | to at most one Thing.
> A URI refers to at most one Thing in each FOL interpretation; in
> a typical conversation, it's roughly a zero probability event that both
> speakers have the same interpretation. (And even the interpretation
> of each speaker probably evolves over the course of a conversation.)

I'm not sure I would like to confuse reference (something that happens
in the world) with interpretation (something that happens in model
theoretic computations on assertions).

These are not the same sorts of things.


> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 24 May 2010 14:01:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:08 UTC