- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:52:02 -0000 (GMT)
- To: "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>, "AWWSW TF" <public-awwsw@w3.org>, "David Booth" <david@dbooth.org>
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: >> Jonathan makes an important claim in the center of his case: >> >> "... because most useful >>> >>> predicates are either defined only on information resources or >>> undefined on information resources. " >> >> I wish (and once believed) that this were true, but unfortunately it is >> not. The most obvious example is simply a date of creation, which can >> apply both to a material thing (eg a date of birth) and to an >> information resource (eg a birth certificate.) >> >> OK, he does say 'most', but the point is that there are some important >> ones that this is not true of, and this is enough to rather damage the >> case for tolerating the ambiguity. > > Completely agree. I was looking for a way to acknowledge the > existence of the argument without agreeing with it, and didn't do a > good job. Shall I just not mention it? I mean, if someone is going to make ambiguous statements, we can't stop them. The sensible thing to do here is to encourage people to use less ambiguous statements with clearer intentions, i.e. a "birthDate" vs "documentCreation" predicate. > > Jonathan > >> Pat Hayes >> >> >> On Jan 30, 2011, at 8:27 PM, David Booth wrote: >> >>>> r because most useful >>>> predicates are either defined only on information resources or >>>> undefined on information resources. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> IHMC (850)434 8903 >> or (650)494 3973 >> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office >> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax >> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 >> mobile >> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
Received on Monday, 31 January 2011 12:52:05 UTC