- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 14:46:18 -0400
- To: Rich Cooper <rich@englishlogickernel.com>
- CC: 'Pat Hayes' <phayes@ihmc.us>, 'Peter Ansell' <ansell.peter@gmail.com>, 'Alan Ruttenberg' <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, 'public-semweb-lifesci' <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Hi Rich, On 04/08/2013 02:08 PM, Rich Cooper wrote: > Dear David, > > You wrote: > > 1. Owen's URI definition will always be ambiguous. There will > always exist a property p such that neither p nor its negation are > entailed by the URI definition. > > While true, this leaves out the subjective part; Aster might believe, > without the addition of a new property p, that Owen's URI means one > thing, while Albert believes a different interpretation of Owen's > URIfrom Aster's. While adding a new property (which can always be done > IMHO) makes it mathematically clear, I would like to emphasize that the > individual Observer (Aster, Albert, Algernon,Argentium,or > whoever)alsomakes an individual interpretation which can be different an > arbitrary other Observer. > > I believe the history of group actions taken on "standards" shows that > the individual is the source of most divergence in interpretations. Yes, that sounds like a pretty good characterization of what I was trying to say: that different parties (knowingly or unknowingly) make different assumptions about the interpretations that will be applied to the data. David Booth
Received on Monday, 8 April 2013 18:46:45 UTC