Re: Candidate message to TAG re httpRange-14 resolution

On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 09:45 -0500, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
[ . . . ]
> > I mean, if someone is going to make ambiguous statements, we can't stop
> > them.
> 
> Correct - anyone *can* say what they like, but they can be held
> accountable for what they. You have to imagine the conversation that
> follows from a misunderstanding. "You said that the license applied to
> R!" "No I didn't, I said it applied to S!" "But don't you use the URI
> to refer to R? That's what everyone else does." "No, nobody says I
> have to so I don't feel bound by that convention." "Then how was I
> supposed to know you meant S instead of R?" "You were supposed to read
> the content of R. It's obvious if you do that." "But I'm just a stupid
> search engine.  I only look at the copyright statement. You expect me
> to read and understand the whole document so that I know the URI is
> supposed to mean S instead of R?" "Yes, it's my URI so I get to use it
> however I like." "If I grant you this plausible deniability, how can I
> ever hold anyone accountable for anything they say?" "That's your
> problem. You're using the wrong technology for that." "Judge, what do
> you say?"

Excellent scenario.  And I agree that accountability is important.  I
think if we can find a way to explain both the accountability theme and
the fact that ambiguity is relative, it will be a big step forward.

David

> 
> Yes, you can poke holes in this story, but my point is the form of the
> story, not the details. Meaning is burden of proof. If there's no
> accountability (or as Alan R says no way to be wrong) there is no
> semantics. If it turns out the "semantic web" has no semantics any
> more maybe I will need to initiate the creation of a new technology
> (and attending social system) that does.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
>

Received on Monday, 31 January 2011 18:58:27 UTC