- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:23:22 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Hi Pat, I think I see your point: without me standing in front of you, pointing to the moon and saying: "I hereby declare that http://dbooth.org/2007/moon/ henceforth refers to *that* moon", my URI declaration cannot be guaranteed to be understood as referring to the actual moon. That sounds like a valid point, but it doesn't invalidate the notion of a URI declaration. Mechanically, a URI declaration really only creates an association between a URI and a set of assertions (the "core assertions"). The interpretation of those assertions as describing a particular resource -- whether you interpret them the same way I do -- is a different issue. That problem exists regardless of whether one accepts the notion of URI declaration. URI declarations do not try to solve that problem. David Booth, Ph.D. HP Software +1 617 629 8881 office | dbooth@hp.com http://www.hp.com/go/software Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise. > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@ihmc.us] > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:56 PM > To: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) > Cc: www-tag@w3.org > Subject: Re: New version of URI Declarations > > At 10:18 PM +0000 2/27/08, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote: > > I've substantially revised and expanded my write-up on > URI declarations: > > http://dbooth.org/2007/uri-decl/ > > For anyone interested in issues of resource identity > and proper use of URIs, I strongly recommend reading it. If > you already read an earlier version, this version has added > sections on granularity, ancillary assertions, why it's > important to distinguish URI declarations from ancillary > assertions, and an explanation of how a URI declaration > establishes resource identity. > > The abstract: > [[ > A URI declaration permits assertions about a URI's > associated resource to be classified into two groups: core > assertions, whch are provided by the URI declaration, and > ancillary assertions, which are all others. This distinction > enables different parties to share a common understanding of > the associated resource (by accepting the core assertions) > while making different choices about which ancillary > assertions to accept. This paper defines these concepts and > proposes some related best practices and a Web architectural > rule specifying how URIs for non-information resources can be > conveniently declared using existing hash or hashless > (303-redirect) URI mechanisms. > ]] > > > As usual, comments are invited. > > > OK, you did ask... > > There is a basic problem with this idea and what you say > about it. It comes to the surface here: > > "Definition: A URI declaration is a set of statements, or > "core assertions", that authoritatively declare the > association between a URI and a particular resource. > > A URI declaration is a performative speech act. (See Cowen's > message or Wikipedia.) Its publication by someone who has > the authority to make the declaration -- the URI owner or > delegate -- defines the association between a URI and a resource. " > > Wrong. Or, since a definition can't be wrong: with this > definition, URI declarations do not exist; in fact, cannot > possibly exist. > > No amount of just asserting can possibly create an > association between a URI and a non-information resource, > (unless it does so via some other URI which is itself > 'associated' to a resource appropriately, but that just gets > us into an infinite recursion.) There is no way of forcing a > purely assertional framework, no matter how complex or large > it is, to refer to anything non-linguistic or non-symbolic, > by making assertions in the framework itself. (This can be > formally stated as Herbrand's theorem: if a set of axioms has > a satisfying interpretation at all, then it has one entirely > made of its own symbols.) > > Its not a question of authority. You can have all the > authority you want: but if all you can do is make assertions > at me, no amount of authority is going to prevent me > consistently understanding you as only talking about a > symbolic world. I won't be rejecting what you tell me: you do > have the authority to assert it, and I will accept it all as > true. But it can all be true, and still not refer to what you > want it to refer to. You can't possibly attach symbols to > reality by symbolic means (like making assertions using the symbols). > > Just calling this a performative speech act doesn't work, > either. In order to get a performative to work, you need to > do something - perform a performative - with the thing > involved in the act. The things involved in the speech act > are part of the performance. The performative "I now > pronounce you man and wife" works, in part, because it is > said to the man and the wife themselves, in the flesh, so to > speak. They have to be there to get married. Baptism, > similarly, attaches a name to a child, and the child has to > be there to get baptised. As John Cowan points out, in some > cultures, simply saying "my real name is X' is enough to make > your name X: but it has to be you that says it. Performatives > always use indexicals (I, now, you, this) because they always > need to be performed as part of an act involving the thing or > person itself (or in some cases a person or thing > appropriately associated with the thing or person, such as > someone acting with power of attorney.) > > I could make detailed comments on the rest of the document, > but this is enough. This idea of 'declarations' of > non-symbolic, non-computational, non-informational entities > just does not make sense. You can't declare the moon. Give up > on the idea, its nonsense. > > Pat Hayes > > > -- > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office > Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax > FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell > http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us > http://www.flickr.com/pathayes/collections > > >
Received on Friday, 29 February 2008 02:25:24 UTC