- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 10:50:07 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
In the car now but for the moment, let's just say a reasoner doesn't know my wife. -Alan On May 24, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote: > 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 14:49:59 UTC