- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 20:08:39 -0600
- To: fmanola@mitre.org
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Pat Hayes wrote: >> >> >Following today's teleconference, I was thinking some more about >> >provenance (statements like document X says Y, possibly with other >> >qualifications). >> > >> >The question raised was whether the statement (Y) referenced in an >> >assertion of provenance was a statement token, or some >> >lexically-based value, or an interpretation of (meaning of) the >> >statement. >> > >> >Consider the case of a contract written in a foreign language. My >> >lawyer may tell me that "the contact with abc, dated dmy, that I am >> >about to sign commits me to pay P pounds in return for some good Q". >> >This is a statement of provenance, but it is useless to me if it >> >simply quotes the content of the contract -- I want to know the >> >meaning (expressed in some language that I understand) of the >> >content of the contract. >> > >> >My point is that there is a clear argument for suggesting that >> >assertions of provenance should reference the meaning of the >> >referenced statements, not their lexical form. >> >> Good point. On the other hand, you do want to say it was that >> particular document you signed, right, not some other document that >> just happened to mean the same thing (still less, *all* other >> documents that mean the same thing.) So I think that in a case like >> this we need at least two notions: the physical (token) document you >> actually signed, and the content (interpretation) of that token. >> > >How would this distinction work out in practice, given that even if you >want to refer to the meaning, you still need to refer to some concrete >representation of it (use a different property perhaps)? After all, the >point of signing the contract in the first place was to express your >agreement with its meaning, as opposed to your approval, say, of the >artistic way the words were arranged on the piece of paper (is this an >example of the kind of distinction you want?). True, but I would advise against signing two checks for $100 and then trying to say that it was really just two tokens with the same *meaning*, and that you only therefore only have to pay out $100 total. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2001 21:08:37 UTC