- From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
- Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 11:55:42 +0000
- To: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
- Cc: RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 10:34 AM 1/5/01 +0100, Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN wrote: > > A simpler approach > > is to not try and define "stand for" and see if its use in the definition > > of 'reification' can "stand" unsupported > >On the contrary, I think it is an important definition : >the terms "represents", "models" or "stands for" are quite intuitive, >and hence we use them a lot, so they deserve a formal definition. OK, let's start again on that one... When I say "X stands for Y", I mean that a reference to "X" is to be taken as indicating "Y". Thus if resource R stands for some statement S, I use R when I want to talk about S. Now, to boil that down to a definition... <original> Stand for: A labelled entity that is used in descriptions indicate some entity or concept. </original> <suggestion> Stand for: The use of one entity or concept in a description to refer to some other entity or concept. For example, "X stands for Y in Z" meaning that occurrences of "X" in "Z" are to be understood as references to "Y". </suggestion> ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Friday, 5 January 2001 08:04:20 UTC