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

Re: sketch of an exposition

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 09:42:24 -0500
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1274712144.3925.15333.camel@pav>
On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 10:01 -0400, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> 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.

Care to elaborate? It seems to me that they are exactly 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 14:40:56 UTC

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