W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2003

RE: resources and URIs

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 10:52:27 -0500
Message-ID: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE022DC613@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com>
To: "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

Mine too, but I'm almost terrified to leave this in 
the hands of the experts. :-)

I saw a reference to Scott's work in the Google listing. 
I don't know what the originating relationships are. I 
know that Sowa writes with unusual clarity on the issues 
of concepts and set theory.  He derives from Peirce and 
clarifies that as well which is no mean feat.  It may 
be that for the architecture, one has to admit that 
the theories about why it works are available but not 
as important as capturing the how.  In the case 
of one URI = one concept, that is easy to do: 
assignment.  To the case of proving that there is 
only one concept to which that assignment can be 
made, that isn't doable except insofar as assignment 
to the empty set (the theory of all theories) makes sense.
Sowa is clear about the lattice membership.


-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@ninebynine.org]

Getting out of my depth, but...  does this have any relationship to the 
work that Dana Scott did back in the 1970s on lattices and a theory of 
computation, which in turn provided some basis for denotational semantics 
of programming languages?  I recall that the notions of approximation and 
monotonicity came into that work, with some reference to functions being 
ordered according to some notion of "accuracy".


At 09:45 22/07/03 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

>You could research John Sowa's lattice theory for
>more precise language to describe this notion.
>Apologies but Google returns far too much material
>to provide a precise URI to start the research
>if you aren't already acquainted with it.  And
>that tells us something about URIs and precise
>identification. :-)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Graham Klyne [mailto:gk@ninebynine.org]
>We agree that we, as people, try to use a URI to refer to
>a "single", more or less consistent, concept that is a topic of
>communication.  But there is no way to formalize this single concept:  I
>think the best we can do is to describe it as a kind of "locus" of
>denotations from interpretations that satisfy some formal statements we can
>make about it.

Graham Klyne
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Tuesday, 22 July 2003 11:52:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:00 UTC