- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:14:38 -0400
- To: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
On Friday, October 17, 2003, at 12:02 PM, Dan Connolly wrote: > On Thu, 2003-10-16 at 09:52, Graham Klyne wrote: >> At 08:47 16/10/03 -0400, Thomas B. Passin wrote: >>> Graham Klyne wrote: >>>> This idea of meaning being based in consensus also appears in the >>>> work by >>>> Quine that I mentioned the other week [1]. >>>> A possible difference in position would be that you talk about the >>>> meaning of a URI, where Quine's analysis suggest that it's not the >>>> individual terms but complete statements that have meaning. (I >>>> think >>>> that's a point that Pat has been trying to press, too.) > > Yes, but an interesting thing about the Web is that many of the > terms refer to documents, i.e. collections of statements. This is true of the English I speak and understand as well :) But then, I covet a large library. (It's not clear that a document is a collection of statements, at least, I would have had an 'e.g.,' rather than an 'i.e.,'. I'd *guess* that many, if not most, documents on the web have plenty of non-assertional content. (Uhm..this was less a critical point than just an observation.) Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Friday, 17 October 2003 12:13:50 UTC