Re: A parable about RFC 3986.

On Wed, 2012-01-25 at 13:22 -0500, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
> It looks like you didn't get what I was saying at all. 

I think I understood the mechanics of the scenario, but I didn't
understand what hidden assumptions you were making about whatever
assertions turned out to be contradictory and where they came from.  For
example, you mention: "Alice says that A is a representation of
the state of P and B isn't, while Bob says the opposite.".  But where
and how are those assertions made?  Within A and B?  In casual
conversation?  Somewhere else?  Also, the scenario says that P is a
person, but I don't see any relevance of that fact in the rest of the
scenario.  What additional assertions or inferences are you assuming,
based on the fact that P is a person (as opposed to, say, a document)?

If you could clarify what assertions are contradictory and where they
came from, it would be very helpful.

> Rather than go
> through your message piecemeal I will just have to rewrite it
> completely (and even then I doubt I will succeed in communicating with
> you, based on past experience). 

No need to be disparaging.  Just fill in the missing detail so that I --
and others -- can better follow what you mean.

> Watch this space.
> 
> The way to formalize is probably via Lampson's 'speaks for' logic
> (what Dan Connolly was using when he was participating in AWWSW). Some
> sort of modal logic will be required in order to capture what I mean
> by "authoritative" and "constitutive".



-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.

Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 20:11:05 UTC