W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Uniform access to descriptions

From: Michaeljohn Clement <mj@mjclement.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 04:54:50 -0600
Message-ID: <480337FA.1020001@mjclement.com>
To: wangxiao@musc.edu
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>

Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
> Come on.  Define IR and essential before using it to argue O.K.?

For "IR", I guess you can start here:


And maybe this will help you:


For "essential", the normal English meaning applies.

> How can
> we have a meaningful argument on something that has an ambiguous
> definitions?

It is a basic human problem; perhaps you should ask a linguist or 
philosopher.  Or ask a biologist about "gene".

> That is again you have not fully understand what I and Pat try to tell
> you.  It is not move /away/, you can still work in the same way as you
> do now.  It is about to have /more/ ways to do /more/ things - in a more
> useful and meaningful way.

You assert this, but did not address my point.

I apologize if my answers appear flippant, but I do not wish to repeat 
myself and do not see how to clarify further so I will leave it at that.

Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 10:55:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:21 UTC