- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 08:50:32 -0500
- To: "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@ninebynine.org>, pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>
- Cc: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>, www-tag@w3.org
It is what is meant by "no identity without identification". The identity threads are mostly red herrings. Identity is meaningless as a property value without a well-defined and testable operation for asserting an identity truth value. In your example, to prove the truth of the value, you build a case based on other values. This is analogical and in no way inferior to a strictly logical assertion. It demonstrates the reliance of the logical asserertion on the analogical process which affords context. The language is as flexible as the case is reliable. len From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@ninebynine.org] Is this really true? If a social security number "identifies" a social security account (and nothing else), it can still be used to make reference to a person in a clause of the form "the person whose social security account is identified by social security number xxxx". This doesn't seem like ambiguity to me, but a flexibility of language to express related ideas.
Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 09:50:44 UTC