- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:13:48 -0600
- To: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org] >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. Humans master name selectors based on context. That's pretty much what semiotics is about. KR associates logic with notation. URI/names have to be associated with functions (GET) which rely on other functions (Get(notation(locationType(mightBeAnIDMightNot)))). They all work. The unreasonable position is that URIs just magically work. Names are assigned to thing(s). volitionally by humans or by code. What they do with that assignment is a system feature and in a namespace of overloaded names, that is a local system selector. Selector conflicts appear at a global level as noise and that manifests as confusing signs/names. Result: the astonished primate looking at the blue clickable URI in the xmlns value. What do KR systems do about noisy data? >> We could lead if we could get the lead out. >But do we know where to go or is there no where to go? "Keep to the sunny side..." Mother Maybelle Carter len
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2003 12:14:22 UTC