- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:10:14 -0600
- To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
- Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
At 2:23 AM +0000 2/29/08, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote: >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. It does invalidate what you say about it, however. And I wonder quite what is the point of it, if it can't do what you say it is intended to do. >Mechanically, a URI declaration really only creates an association >between a URI and a set of assertions (the "core assertions"). Well, OK, but now I would ask, why do we need anything special to do this? Publishing some OWL and giving the document a URI does this already. So whats so special about the new idea? >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. So, what problem DO they solve? Pat > > >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 >> >> >> -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 15:10:43 UTC