- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:24:08 -0500
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
- cc: "'Bill de hOra'" <dehora@eircom.net>, Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>, www-tag@w3.org
> You mean you don't object to the object, > or was a bandage wound around the wound? > Is the dump so full we will have to refuse > more refuse? When I saw the tear in the > web, I shed a tear, but should I intimate > this to my intimate friends? Thanks. :-) > Overloading identical syntax. Natural > language does it and so did the web > designers. Indeed. But that's not how KR languages are generally defined. "An interpretation must specify which object in the world is referred to by each constant symbol." [IAMA p186]. To say instead that "An interpretation must specify which objects in the world are referred to by each constant symbol," well..., I'm not exactly sure of all the consequences, but it doesn't sound so good to me. > We could lead if we could get the lead out. But do we know where to go or is there no where to go? -- sandro
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2003 10:25:11 UTC