- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 03:27:00 +0200
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Jason Borro <jason@openguid.net>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On 16 June 2011 02:26, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: > If you agree with Danny that a description can be a substitute for the thing it describes, then I am waiting to hear how one of you will re-write classical model theory to accommodate this classical use/mention error. You might want to start by reading Korzybski's 'General Semantics'. IANAL, but I have heard of the use/mention thing, quite often. I don't honestly know whether classical model theory needs a rewrite, but I'm sure it doesn't on the basis of this thread. I also don't know enough to know whether it's applicable - from your reaction, I suspect not. As a publisher of information on the Web, I'm pretty much free to say what I like (cf. Tim's Design Notes). Fish are bicycles. But that isn't very useful. But if I say Sasha is some kind of weird Collie-German Shepherd cross, that has direct relevance to Sasha herself. More, the arcs in my description between Sasha and her parents have direct correspondence with the arcs between Sasha and her parents. There is information common to the reality and the description (at least in human terms). The description may, when you stand back, be very different in its nature to the reality, but if you wish to make use of the information, such common aspects are valuable. We've already established that HTTP doesn't deal with any kind of "one true" representation. Data about Sasha's parentage isn't Sasha, but it's closer than a non-committal 303 or rdfs:seeAlso. There's nothing around HTTP that says it can't be given the same name, and it's a darn sight more useful than a wave-over-there redirect or a random fish/bike association. I can't see anything it breaks either. Cheers, Danny. -- http://danny.ayers.name
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2011 01:27:28 UTC