W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Harvesting from Roy's paper

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 15:40:12 +0000
Message-ID: <4D74FC5C.7030408@webr3.org>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
CC: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Jonathan Rees wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>> Jonathan Rees wrote:
>>> Blog post including this material:
>>> http://odontomachus.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/are-you-confused-yet-about-the-word-representation/
>> :) the last one made me chuckle a bit!
>> definitions I that "sit right" with me:
> It's not a question of "sit right" generally, but specifically for
> some articulated purpose. I have no trouble at all with an art
> historian saying that a painting is a representation of a saint.
> That's just a different sense of the word. The "hateful" thing is when
> one person takes a statement made assuming one sense, then
> reinterprets the statement with another sense for propaganda reasons.
> For example, AWWW might be taken as using "representation" in Roy's
> sense when actually it's using it in Tim's sense (although I admit you
> have to read between the lines to infer that - really it may be
> gingerly using it  in *neither* sense since the argument wasn't
> resolved at the time of publication).
> Both Roy and Tim would have done better to coin new words. I'm
> experimenting with 'specialization' for Tim's sense, although even
> that would be more a term of art than an adaptation of a common-sense
> meaning.

Can you just clarify, regardless of what word is suggested/adopted, what 
the meaning of it would be? in-line with TimBL's and Niklaus Wirth's 
definition? to be used in relation to "information resource" and 
Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 15:40:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:22 UTC