tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7979481.post115382435859471997..comments2012-02-14T11:37:33.969+01:00Bernard Vatanthttps://profiles.google.com/114406186864069390644noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7979481.post-1153882634267872062006-07-26T04:57:00.000+02:002006-07-26T04:57:00.000+02:00Your objection is a good one, I think. And your appreciation of Pat's work is justified. I have been exploring some of these ideas with examples, as in <A HREF="http://kashori.com/2006/06/anatomy-of-reference.html" REL="nofollow">Anatomy of a Reference</A>, <A HREF="http://kashori.com/2006/07/how-to-identify-resources-with-uri.html" REL="nofollow">How to Identify Resources with URI</A>, <A HREF="http://kashori.com/2006/07/ambiguity-and-identity.html" REL="nofollow">Ambiguity and Identity</A>, and <A HREF="http://kashori.com/2006/07/problems-identifying-information.html" REL="nofollow">Problems Identifying Information</A>. A while back I argued that ambiguity is inevitable due to the different viewpoints of <A HREF="http://kashori.com/2004/12/it-takes-agent-to-be-semantic.html" REL="nofollow">discrete agents</A>. <BR/><BR/>But I am also working on a different extension of Pat's ideas. When viewed in an absolute sense, a word like 'bank' is ambiguous. But a particular utterance of the word, in a particular context, is not always ambiguous. Pat acknowledges this, but he seems to be operating from a bias towards the view of words in the absolute. I think it is the utterance in context that is fundamental and it is derived, secondary, and artificial to treat words as absolute and discrete. This requires the view that context is not external to words, but is actually an essential part of the utterance of each word. The word and the context are really one thing, not two. Somehow, a URI, and the context of the semantic web, must be one thing as well.<BR/><BR/>I may continue this is in a future blog entry at <A HREF="http://kashori.com" REL="nofollow">http://kashori.com</A>John Blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09569861740605656863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7979481.post-1153850277610643102006-07-25T19:57:00.000+02:002006-07-25T19:57:00.000+02:00Yes indeed. Pat Hayes follows Quine quite often, and once again in the quoted paper.Bernard Vatanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18031757620856104721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7979481.post-1153847532543051982006-07-25T19:12:00.000+02:002006-07-25T19:12:00.000+02:00You can find strong support for your position in <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_Van_Orman_Quine" REL="nofollow">Quine</A>. See also <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_of_translation" REL="nofollow">Indeterminacy of Translation</A>Richard Veryardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12387653865046593061noreply@blogger.com