- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 18:55:18 -0500
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
> > I fail to see how requiring uses to be logically consistent with privileged >> prior uses is significantly better than use implying consent (read import >> here if you like) to privileged prior uses. In my opinion it is generally >> the case that if you don't want to disagree with privileged prior use then >> you want to consent to this previous prior use. > >I think there's a big middle ground which switches sides between these >two options. To take the running-code example I posted earlier, >requiring consistency just means > :Coconut a bio:Cat, bio:Dog >would be flagged as web-inconsistent (assuming bio says Cat and Dog >are disjoint), but it does not mean anything for querying systems. It >doesn't mean you have to give --closure=po or anything. It makes this >whole following links thing stay optional in querying, and only be >mandated (more or less) in consistency/error checking. > >> To pick on my favourite example, if I want to discuss a particular invoice >> and I don't disagree with the statements about that invoice made by the >> creator of that invoice, say for example to claim that the invoice is >> invalid in some way, then I almost always want to consent to these >> statements. > >I would approach that problem with some kind of scare-quotes. Or - I hesitate to even mention this - with reification? Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 9 October 2003 19:55:20 UTC