- From: <alexandre.monnin@web-and-philosophy.org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 22:11:10 +0100
- To: "public-rdf-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Cc: "public-webid Group" <public-webid@w3.org>, "public-philoweb@w3.org" <public-philoweb@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <op.wsevswcvxo5klo@alexalien-pc>
Traditionally, reference is understood as the relation between a name and a referent while denotation is used for the objects that satisfy a concept (Frege's Wertverlauf, corresponding to "extensions", though this term itself has a long history!). The distinction is made very clear in Russell's philosophy especially against Meinong and his theory that whatever you point at (typically with a name) is an object, whether existent, non-existent, impossible, etc. Cheers, A. Le Tue, 12 Feb 2013 21:58:03 +0100, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> a écrit: > A question that came up on the WebID mailing list. We'd just like some > clarification > for the use of denotes, as the issue has come up there. > > On 11 Feb 2013, at 21:37, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: > >> Henry / Andrei, >> >> I current see [ in >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/raw-file/tip/spec/identity-respec.html ] >> "A WebID is an HTTP URI which *refers* to an Agent (Person, >> Organization, Group, Device, etc.)." >> >> But in the context of RDF based Linked Data, the RDF workgroup (after >> serious thought on this matter) [1] has opted to use what would equate >> to: >> >> A WebID is an HTTP URI which *denotes* an Agent (Person, Organization, >> Group, Device, etc.). >> >> The more we stick to definitions and terminology being used acrossother >> W3C groups the easier things will be (on the appreciation andadoption >> front) for WebID, over the long haul. > >> >> Links: >> >> 1. >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-rdf11-concepts-20130115/#resources-and-statements >> . >> 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-rdf11-concepts-20130115/ -- latest RDF >> 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax edition . > > I am not sure why "denotes" is being taken up by the RDF group nowadays, > when most philosophy books and logic books tend to use the word "refer". > Most engineers use the word refer too on a daily basis. > > In fact it is quite clear from the RDF concepts text that the two words > are near synonymous, since what an IRI denotes is called its referent: > > [[ > Any IRI or literal denotes some thing in the universe of discourse.These > things are called resources. Anything can be a resource, including > physical things, documents, abstract concepts, numbers and strings; the > term is synonymous with “entity”. The resource denoted by an IRI is > called its referent, > ]] > > I am ok with denotes. But we can also use referent according to that > text. So I don't think this is a very settled matter - given furthermore > that the above is not yet a final spec. > > I would like to know why this decision is being made though. Is thatjust > an aesthetic statement, or is there more behind it? > > Henry > >> >> -- >> >> Regards, >> >> Kingsley IdehenFounder & CEO >> OpenLink Software >> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com >> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen >> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen >> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about >> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen >> >> >> >> >> > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ > -- Responsable Recherche Web et Métadonnées à l'Institut de Recherche et d'Innovation du Centre Pompidou (IRI) Doctorant en philosophie à Paris 1 (PHICO, EXeCO) Collaborateur extérieur chez Inria - Projet DBpedia Francophone et SemanticPedia (Membre associé de l'EPI Wimmics, Centre de Recherche de Sophia-Antipolis) Chercheur associé au CNAM (équipe Dicen-idf) Co-chair du W3C Community Group "Philosophy of the Web" http://www.w3.org/community/philoweb/ Responsable du séminaire "Digital Studies & Metada Studies", 2012-2013 (Ministère de la Culture, IRI) Co-organisateur des "Rencontres du Web de données" au Centre Pompidou Membre du comité de rédaction de la revue Implications Philosophiques Twitter : @aamonnz & @PhiloWeb Philosophy of the Web, http://web-and-philosophy.org/ PhiloWeb on Dailymotion, http://www.dailymotion.com/PhiloWeb Philosophy and Web discussion list @INRIA, https://lists-sop.inria.fr/sympa/info/philoweb
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2013 21:11:45 UTC