Re: Candidate message to TAG re httpRange-14 resolution

Harry Halpin wrote:
>> 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:
>>>
>>> "... Â because most useful
>>>> predicates are either defined only on information resources or
>>>> undefined on information resources. Â "
>>> 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.

does that also apply to the html version of moby dick case? 
documentCreation applies to?

Received on Monday, 31 January 2011 13:22:41 UTC