12:53:04 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #awwsw
12:53:04 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/05/26-awwsw-irc
12:53:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:53:06 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #awwsw
12:53:08 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be AWWSW
12:53:08 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see TAG_(AWWSW)9:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
12:53:09 <trackbot> Meeting: W3C Architecture of The World Wide Semantic Web Task Force Teleconference
12:53:09 <trackbot> Date: 26 May 2009
12:53:13 <mhausenblas> Zakim, this will be AWWSW
12:53:13 <Zakim> ok, mhausenblas; I see TAG_(AWWSW)9:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
12:53:23 <mhausenblas> Chair: Michael
12:53:30 <mhausenblas> Agenda:    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-awwsw/2009May/0008.html
12:53:35 <mhausenblas> Previous:  2009-05-12 http://www.w3.org/2009/05/12-awwsw-minutes
12:53:54 <mhausenblas> Scribenick: hhalpin: 
12:54:15 <mhausenblas> regrets+ David
12:54:31 <mhausenblas> rrsagent, draft minutes
12:54:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/05/26-awwsw-minutes.html mhausenblas
12:54:36 <mhausenblas> rrsagent, make record public
12:56:58 <Zakim> TAG_(AWWSW)9:00AM has now started
12:57:05 <Zakim> +jar
12:57:07 <jar> jar has joined #awwsw
12:57:22 <jar> zakim, this will be awwsw
12:57:22 <Zakim> ok, jar, I see TAG_(AWWSW)9:00AM already started
12:58:36 <Zakim> +DavidB
12:58:39 <Zakim> -jar
12:58:41 <Zakim> +jar
12:59:28 <mhausenblas> jar: everything prepared, /me chairing and hhalpin  scribing ;)
12:59:38 <mhausenblas> Zakim, code?
12:59:38 <Zakim> the conference code is 29979 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), mhausenblas
12:59:51 <Zakim> +mhausenblas
13:01:51 <mhausenblas> Zakim, who's here?
13:01:51 <Zakim> On the phone I see jar, DavidB, mhausenblas
13:01:53 <Zakim> On IRC I see jar, Zakim, RRSAgent, mhausenblas, hhalpin, trackbot
13:02:09 <mhausenblas> regrets- David
13:02:27 <mhausenblas> rrsagent, draft minutes
13:02:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/05/26-awwsw-minutes.html mhausenblas
13:02:40 <mhausenblas> rrsagent, make record public
13:05:30 <mhausenblas> Michael: on ESW Wiki the attachements have been locked
13:06:05 <mhausenblas> ... I'm in contact with Mark Baker to fix that (all figures are gone, for now)
13:06:36 <jar> chair: mhausenblas
13:07:19 <Zakim> +??P18
13:07:26 <hhalpin> Zakim, P18 is HarryH
13:07:26 <Zakim> sorry, hhalpin, I do not recognize a party named 'P18'
13:07:29 <hhalpin> Zakim, ??P18 is HarryH
13:07:29 <Zakim> +HarryH; got it
13:07:33 <hhalpin> Zakim, mute HarryH
13:07:33 <Zakim> HarryH should now be muted
13:07:37 <hhalpin> Excellent.
13:07:55 <Stuart> Stuart has joined #awwsw
13:08:37 <mhausenblas> yes. shall we wait for you to join?
13:08:43 <jar> didn't you get the announcement?
13:08:52 <Zakim> +??P19
13:08:56 <hhalpin> I didn't get a formal announcement.
13:09:08 <hhalpin> Just JAR pinging Michael.
13:09:13 <jar> I sent one on the 24th to public-awwsw.
13:09:22 <jar> oh, I see... not formal enough
13:09:45 <hhalpin> It's fine, but people might miss it...
13:09:57 <hhalpin> mhausenblas: let's start with jar's mail about generic resources
13:10:12 <mhausenblas> Topic: Jar's tracing of TimBL's IR notion
13:10:13 <mhausenblas> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-awwsw/2009May/0006.html
13:10:53 <hhalpin> jar: main observation was to take an axiomatic approach
13:11:00 <hhalpin> jar: rather than to do it ontologically
13:11:18 <hhalpin> jar: start with generic resource
13:11:34 <hhalpin> jar: then there is a parameter space that helps up index the kinds of resources
13:11:42 <hhalpin> jar: three different ways to set-up parameter space
13:11:54 <hhalpin> jar: timbl's version (time, language, media type)
13:12:07 <hhalpin> jar: distinguish generic resource from the "trace"
13:12:24 <hhalpin> jar: "trace" is a function from a parameter-space to awww:representations
13:12:35 <hhalpin> jar: think of it as an observation/recording/sample of generic resource
13:12:45 <hhalpin> jar: try to make it possible to compare these three different notions
13:12:52 <Zakim> +alanr
13:12:54 <hhalpin> jar: david booth's "ftrr" 
13:13:01 <hhalpin> jar: timbl's "generic resource" idea
13:13:09 <mhausenblas> Zakim, who's here?
13:13:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see jar, DavidB, mhausenblas, HarryH (muted), Stuart, alanr
13:13:11 <Zakim> On IRC I see Stuart, jar, Zakim, RRSAgent, mhausenblas, hhalpin, trackbot
13:13:19 <hhalpin> jar: roy's resource model.
13:13:30 <hhalpin> jar: do they make a distinguish between resource and trace?
13:13:39 <mhausenblas> (notes that in http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswGenOntDiagrams the diagrams are back in again)
13:13:52 <hhalpin> jar: TimBL does, David doesn't, Roy does in text but formally doesn't.
13:14:28 <alanr> alanr has joined #awwsw
13:14:38 <alanr> zakim, who is here?
13:14:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see jar, DavidB, mhausenblas, HarryH (muted), Stuart, alanr
13:14:40 <Zakim> On IRC I see alanr, Stuart, jar, Zakim, RRSAgent, mhausenblas, hhalpin, trackbot
13:14:45 <alanr> nor I
13:15:18 <alanr> q+
13:15:52 <mhausenblas> ack alanr
13:16:21 <hhalpin> jar: the reason the second notion comes up is that we are trying to match this abstract work with what one might observe from the web.
13:16:40 <hhalpin> jar: although as timbl put it, it's ontologically distinct, we need to explain what it means for something to be "on the web"
13:16:49 <hhalpin> alanr: not happy with the idea of "consistent"
13:17:05 <hhalpin> alanr: all we know is that they got back from a 200 response.
13:17:25 <hhalpin> jar: according to timbl a generic resource can have awww:representations without being "on the web"
13:17:44 <hhalpin> jar: moby dick, even if it didn't have representations, would still be a representation.
13:18:02 <hhalpin> alanr: but I thought awww:representations were those in AWWW, which were on the Web, thus back from 200 response.
13:18:13 <hhalpin> jar: they *happen* to be awww:representation.
13:18:14 <alanr> wa-representation = 'representation' in the REST or web architecture
13:18:14 <alanr> >>>    (AWWW) sense (NOT in the Xiaoshu or plain-English sense that
13:18:14 <alanr> >>>    permits, say, a rock, or a citizen, to be represented)
13:18:57 <hhalpin> I personally not sure if we should talk about "representations" not being on Web.
13:19:11 <hhalpin> Or at least "awww:representations" not being on the Web.
13:19:17 <hhalpin> jar: data that codes resource state.
13:19:22 <hhalpin> jar: not necesarily on the Web.
13:19:23 <jar> http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#def-representation
13:19:42 <hhalpin> jar: clear that it can be, since it's not specific to HTTP.
13:20:24 <hhalpin> My personal take is that "awww:representation" can be a more abstract notion, but a subset of them can be retrieved by 200 HTTP response codes.
13:20:48 <hhalpin> alanr: can't have representation without a communication channel.
13:20:53 <hhalpin> jar: but let's do it axiomatic
13:21:02 <hhalpin> alanr: not sure if you can avoid ontological committments
13:21:32 <hhalpin> how does whether or not the "awww:representation" being on the Web or not matter for JAR's axiomatization
13:21:38 <Stuart> afaik the core of alan's dificulty is with S in fact being a wa-representation of G.... because how would one tell.
13:22:16 <mhausenblas> q+
13:23:24 <mhausenblas> ack me
13:23:34 <mhausenblas> 'A representation is data that encodes information about resource state.'
13:24:01 <alanr> is this an axiom ?
13:24:37 <timbl> timbl has joined #awwsw
13:24:52 <hhalpin> jar: I am not sure that is a great definition.
13:24:57 <timbl> Zakim, please call timbl-office
13:24:57 <Zakim> ok, timbl; the call is being made
13:24:58 <Zakim> +Timbl
13:25:08 <hhalpin> mhausenblas: Well, we should make a decision on whether or not to support this definition.
13:25:14 <hhalpin> jar: it's probably good enough for the moment
13:25:27 <hhalpin> jar: the question is "must a representation be on the Web or not?"
13:25:41 <hhalpin> mhausenblas: ask timbl would help
13:25:50 <mhausenblas> Zakim, who's here?
13:25:50 <Zakim> On the phone I see jar, DavidB, mhausenblas, HarryH (muted), Stuart, alanr, Timbl
13:25:52 <Zakim> On IRC I see timbl, alanr, Stuart, jar, Zakim, RRSAgent, mhausenblas, hhalpin, trackbot
13:26:12 <hhalpin> jar: Is there such a thing as a resource not being on the Web?
13:26:28 <hhalpin> timbl: resource is a concept in the architecture
13:26:34 <hhalpin> timbl: like an integer, like a data-type
13:26:44 <hhalpin> timbl: that's like asking does a number have to be in a formula
13:26:49 <alanr> ?
13:26:53 <hhalpin> timbl: what would depend on the answer to that question
13:26:59 <Stuart> FWIW I'm still of the opinion that representations are not resources that are on the web, they are part of the mechanisms by which resource state is communicated.
13:27:03 <timbl> What depends on the answer to that question?
13:27:23 <hhalpin> jar: Can a resource have representations that are never returned?
13:27:29 <jar> dbooth, not jar: Can a resource have representations that are never returned?
13:27:50 <alanr> Look, if they have an independent existence then they are resources. But it's been categorically stated that they are not.
13:27:57 <hhalpin> timbl: how would you ever know? that can't be verified. Maybe I could have a secret webserver no-one will ever know about.
13:28:07 <hhalpin> security via obscurity :)
13:28:57 <hhalpin> alanr: I think the question is relevant to jar because can an information resource have characteristics that aren't observable.
13:29:04 <hhalpin> timbl: that's a fundamental issue
13:29:16 <hhalpin> timbl: yes, a resource can have characteristics that aren't available via http
13:29:25 <jar> timbl: A generic resource can have characteristics that are not observable... e.g. IPR
13:29:44 <alanr> harry: resources can, allegedly. what does that have to do with representations?
13:29:46 <hhalpin> timbl: copyright is not "on the net"
13:30:09 <alanr> then a request for copyright should return 303
13:30:10 <alanr> ?
13:30:25 <hhalpin> It's just that you can not, therefore, equate a resource with a set of representations
13:30:26 <mhausenblas> Michael: is this resource metadata? (seems not/more?)
13:30:34 <hhalpin> that in fact, ftrr is false.
13:30:44 <hhalpin> that, therefore, fielding's formalization is a bit wrong as well.
13:30:44 <hhalpin> that's fine.
13:31:06 <jar> authorship is not observable
13:31:11 <hhalpin> alanr: all possible times, all possible requets, all possible language
13:31:13 <jar> (always)
13:31:14 <alanr> harry: Note that we are talking about generic resources in JAR's note. There are defined as those that *can* be communicated.
13:31:28 <alanr> are there information resources that can't be communicated?
13:31:35 <hhalpin> timbl: you *can* convey authorship or not in a representation, but it's often *not* conveyed. 
13:31:56 <hhalpin> alan, information of course can be communicated. but it does not necessarily means it *is* communicated.
13:32:27 <hhalpin> alan, also communiation presuppose quite a lot, such as baseline language/ontology alignment between agents, which may not be true.
13:32:48 <timbl> A resource can *have* representations 
13:32:58 <hhalpin> jar: ftrr is not sufficient to characterize even an information resource.
13:33:08 <hhalpin> jar, that was my point even about relative URIs.
13:33:11 <Stuart> Fielding and Booth FTTR are 'just' models of the behaviour of a resource.... I don't think either truely takes the view that the sets of accessible representations ARE in fact the resource. ie. what Tim just said.
13:33:12 <hhalpin> jar, a very mechanical point.
13:33:27 <timbl> "ftrr is not sufficient to characterize even an information resource." yes
13:33:32 <mhausenblas> (From "Fielding and Taylor ICSE 2000 "Principled Design of the Modern Web Architecture": resource metadata: information about the resource that is not specific to the supplied representation)
13:33:35 <hhalpin> Stuart, I have heard David argue that it is sufficient quite alot.
13:33:50 <timbl> (deoending on what you mean by characterize)
13:33:58 <hhalpin> jar: we have an agreement here, ftrr is not consistent.
13:34:04 <mhausenblas> rrsagent, draft minutes
13:34:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/05/26-awwsw-minutes.html mhausenblas
13:34:05 <hhalpin> jar: that's why we call it "trace" rather than resource.
13:34:11 <alanr> harry: "consistent"?
13:34:19 <Stuart> Harry, so the work Mobey Dick is an FTTR!
13:34:21 <jar> hey..  ftrr is just *different* from what Tim's talking about (GR)
13:34:23 <hhalpin> jar: want to think about that definition.
13:34:42 <hhalpin> ftrr=trace
13:34:47 <hhalpin> ftrr != resource
13:34:57 <hhalpin> in some cases, possibly ftrr CAN = resource
13:35:04 <hhalpin> but not necessarily and often unlikely.
13:35:31 <hhalpin> alan, not sure what is meant via consistent by jar quite yet.
13:36:49 <hhalpin> I'm just going to say that we need to STOP arguing about whether or not ftrr=information resource
13:36:54 <hhalpin> it's unproductive and incorrect.
13:37:03 <timbl> Why?
13:37:09 <hhalpin> The simple relative URI argument shows that it is incorrect without processing.
13:37:28 <jar> I wanted to say what it meant for G to be served by a server S at a URI U
13:37:29 <timbl> I think the idea that "trr=information resource" is unproductive and incorrect.
13:37:48 <timbl> Ok, so you mean we stop arguring because we agree.
13:37:50 <hhalpin> Timbl, because if a resource = ftrr, then a resource can be defined purely in terms of returned representations.
13:38:01 <hhalpin> yes.
13:38:06 <timbl> Ok, glad we agree.
13:38:07 <hhalpin> we agree, minus possibly david booth, whose not here.
13:38:22 <hhalpin> but i have heard this argument for about a year, and I don't think it's useful and is trivially shown wrong by things like relative URIs.
13:38:35 <hhalpin> alanr: there are parts of the formalism I agree with and dont'.
13:38:51 <hhalpin> jar: I'm trying to just do formal because I want to remain ontology/interpretation free as long as possible.
13:39:03 <hhalpin> jar: thus to prevent arguments about representations/resource definitions
13:39:13 <hhalpin> jar: I use term "consistent"
13:39:19 <hhalpin> would like to clarify this notion consistent
13:39:44 <hhalpin> ah.
13:40:36 <hhalpin> timbl: the server can send back something, a representation?
13:40:44 <alanr> tim: We are still figuring out what "that" means
13:40:50 <Stuart> FWIW jar: I think the mean is clear to me... but the difficulty is in th determination that the wa-representation is in fact a wa-representation G (when S is asked the question using U)
13:41:02 <hhalpin> timbl: if a server sends something back that isn't a representation
13:41:09 <hhalpin> timbl: is it not on the Web?
13:41:31 <hhalpin> jar: can we get representations that aren't representations of a resource?
13:41:44 <hhalpin> timbl: there is a URI, that denotes a resource
13:42:17 <hhalpin> jar: take an arbitary URI, ask the queston, whether some particular server, is it giving you a reprsentation of a generic resource?
13:42:28 <hhalpin> timbl: is a arbitrary resource identified? how?
13:42:32 <hhalpin> jar: moby dick example
13:42:50 <hhalpin> jar: Am I getting representations of moby dick?
13:43:08 <hhalpin> stuart: I think AlanR's question is how to determine if a reprsentation *really is of* moby dick?
13:43:15 <hhalpin> jar: you have to assume you can do that
13:43:18 <jar> Given a URI U, am I getting a representation of Moby Dick from some server given URI U?
13:44:18 <Stuart> Tim: here's the bit of JAR's email that we are discussing (I think) 
13:44:19 <Stuart> OK, now suppose that S is an HTTP server, and G is a generic-resource,
13:44:19 <Stuart> and U is a URI.  Define "S is consistent with G at U" as follows:
13:44:19 <Stuart>   if whenever S receives an HTTP GET request with request-URI U and
13:44:19 <Stuart>     responds with a 200 response is received,
13:44:19 <Stuart>   the RFC2616-entity in the 200 response is a wa-representation of G,
13:44:21 <Stuart>   then S is consistent with G at U.
13:44:28 <Zakim> -DavidB
13:47:03 <jar> Denotation isn't empirical.
13:47:07 <hhalpin> maybe say "the RFC2616-entity in the 200 response is information about the state of G"
13:47:30 <hhalpin> notes that at least we agree ftrr != resource
13:47:49 <hhalpin> jar: we need to figure out if we descriptive/pre-scriptive
13:48:08 <hhalpin> jar: how do we then understand what it means for something to be "on the Web" or not.
13:48:22 <mhausenblas> Michael thinks it is all about naming things. We can use whatever we want
13:48:30 <jar> it's a bait and switch
13:48:45 <mhausenblas> addressing, labelling, denoting, referring to, etc.
13:48:54 <hhalpin> that's why I wanted to subclass Information/Generic Resource with a class WebResource that has Representations that are available via HTTP 200.
13:48:59 <mhausenblas> or simply: identify as in UR *I*
13:49:06 <hhalpin> Also note that I think, in general, formal systems parasite off of natural language.
13:49:38 <jar> Are the representations we see coming from S (from requests on U) consistent with S thinking that U names resource G?
13:49:42 <hhalpin> it's hard to not do that, and systems that do not do it, formal systems, are very ambiguous actually, rather than unambigous, unless their domain is carefully construed (i.e. real numbers, etc.)
13:50:02 <hhalpin> jar: how do we know if a URI identifies a resource with that name?
13:50:09 <hhalpin> jar: maybe the URI names a different resource?
13:50:13 <mhausenblas> so, I read, a URI {addressing|labelling|denoting|referring to|identifies|names|whatever-jar-wants-to-call-it} a resource
13:50:45 <hhalpin> timbl: how can you tell? maybe you can look at the diff?
13:50:54 <jar> "on the web"
13:50:58 <hhalpin> jar: you need to relate this abstract realm to the real realm, the realm "on the Web"
13:51:00 <jar> G is "on the web" at U
13:51:09 <jar> (according to some S)
13:51:20 <hhalpin> jar: "on the web" is a relationship
13:51:30 <timbl> G is  is_on_the_web_at  "http:/..."
13:51:38 <hhalpin> jar: moby dick is "on the web" at some particular URI
13:51:42 <alanr> x on the web =def x exists(u) x on the web at u
13:51:46 <hhalpin> jar: this becomes a falsiable statement
13:52:02 <jar> G is "on the web" at U (according to S)
13:52:12 <timbl> <http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2701> dc:title "Moby Dick".
13:52:13 <Stuart> jar: can you explan how it is falsifiable?
13:52:34 <jar> you can do a GET and look at the result, and check to see if it's a rep of G
13:52:54 <alanr> some said we agree on the semantics of "on the web at U". No we are trying to understand what that could mean.
13:53:17 <Stuart> ok.... but that goes out of the realms of the 'formal' system and relies on a human inspection and a human judgement.
13:53:49 <timbl> <http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2701/2701.zip> dc:title "Moby Dick".
13:53:51 <hhalpin> mhausenblas: representatioin is *current* state of resource
13:53:53 <jar> X is a rep of G   is shorthand for X is a rep of G in its current state (or some state)
13:54:56 <hhalpin> timbl: the sense of the statements may be different, and when I give you that URI, I *think* you are getting back a reprsentation of what I wanted
13:55:02 <timbl> <http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2701/2701.txt> dc:title "Moby Dick".
13:55:06 <timbl> 1.2MB
13:55:12 <mhausenblas> s/"Moby Dick"/"Moby Dick, or, the whale by Herman Melville"
13:55:21 <timbl> thank you
13:55:23 <jar> "X is a rep of state of G"   not the same as  "X is a rep of G in its current state"  since latter allows the rep to contain stuff that's part of G but not part of its state
13:56:06 <mhausenblas> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:56:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/05/26-awwsw-minutes.html mhausenblas
13:56:29 <jar> mhausenblas, next steps?
13:56:35 <hhalpin> timbl: so we can put representations on the web, then we can talk about how we can use it, but if we stop and say "what if someone hacked into server?" 
13:56:40 <hhalpin> timbl: about the error case
13:56:45 <hhalpin> timbl: then the models becomes much messier
13:56:58 <hhalpin> timbl: we have to figure out who owns domain, and all of these things.
13:57:02 <mhausenblas> +1
13:57:11 <hhalpin> timbl: but let's focus ontology about what happens when someone does it right
13:57:15 <jar> +1
13:57:55 <hhalpin> so, we can assume that the representations are jar:consistent, i.e. that the representations describe the resource. 
13:58:00 <hhalpin> ok, here's an example.
13:58:12 <jar> except, "denotes" and "identifies" are troublesome
13:58:27 <hhalpin> if the resource U = "Moby Dick" and HTTPRequest(U) = "picture of blue cheese" therefore, we are in an error state.
13:59:03 <hhalpin> To attempt to remove human agency in some attempt to formally define "representation" is doomed.
13:59:21 <hhalpin> We have to assume humans can communicate about the world using languages.
14:00:08 <hhalpin> jar: we have to assume the premise that people can both identify and communicate about Moby Dick
14:00:19 <hhalpin> timbl: they can look at it and say "yes, it's moby dick"
14:00:37 <hhalpin> note that in philosophy of language, this is called defining a sense or content of a representation via assertoric content.
14:00:44 <hhalpin> see Michael Dummett
14:01:00 <hhalpin> alanr: so we need two people
14:01:12 <hhalpin> jar: we don't need people, want to define consistent
14:01:26 <hhalpin> alanr: we are trying to use reverse reasoning about what resource could be.
14:01:34 <hhalpin> jar: it doesn't constrain them.
14:01:46 <Stuart> jar: would a formulation that involved two URI be clearer - are the wa-representations available using U1 consistent with the wa-representations available at U2 - ducking the problem of any out of system way or referring to the resource - eg. you were using the name Mobey Dick as a non-URI way of referring to the resource.
14:01:46 <hhalpin> that JUMP is justified.
14:02:09 <hhalpin> Sorry, that's how language works.
14:02:23 <hhalpin> we have to assume people can identify and use language to denote things to accomplish things.
14:02:37 <timbl> NO it is 60 mins
14:02:38 <hhalpin> if we can't make that jump, then we are stuck.
14:02:42 <timbl> s/NO/No
14:03:28 <hhalpin> Please see Dummett on Frege or almost any work in philosophy of language after 1950.
14:04:01 <hhalpin> mhausenblas: 9th of June for next telecon
14:04:14 <alanr> I'll be abroad. Can't figure out what time it will be
14:04:19 <hhalpin> yes
14:04:25 <hhalpin> i'd like to review IRW ontology
14:04:36 <alanr> harry - make sure all terms have definitions and that they are not circular
14:04:47 <hhalpin> alanr - all definitions are circular to some extent
14:04:53 <alanr> cop out
14:04:54 <hhalpin> that's Searle
14:04:56 <hhalpin> No, it's true.
14:05:02 <hhalpin> Definitions come in groups of related concepts
14:05:02 <Zakim> -Timbl
14:05:05 <hhalpin> that's not a cop-out.
14:05:05 <alanr> excuse for not being clear
14:05:12 <Zakim> -Stuart
14:05:13 <hhalpin> you can't understand a concept without other.
14:05:14 <Zakim> -alanr
14:05:19 <hhalpin> that's the recursive dictionary problem.
14:05:20 <Zakim> -mhausenblas
14:05:25 <jar> harry +1
14:05:28 <alanr> there's something called the world
14:05:37 <hhalpin> otherwise you try to ground out in "elementary sense data"
14:05:40 <mhausenblas> [adjourned]
14:05:47 <mhausenblas> zakim, list attendees
14:05:47 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been jar, DavidB, mhausenblas, HarryH, Stuart, alanr, Timbl
14:05:48 <hhalpin> which is an argument that has been proven incorrect again and again.
14:05:56 <Zakim> -jar
14:06:06 <hhalpin> see recent work in cognitive science or even just Wittgenstein's duck/rabbit argument.
14:06:13 <alanr> in any case a definition that refers to its own term isn't building on anything
14:06:15 <mhausenblas> rrsagent, please draft minutes
14:06:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/05/26-awwsw-minutes.html mhausenblas
14:06:22 <mhausenblas> zakim, bye
14:06:22 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were jar, DavidB, mhausenblas, HarryH, Stuart, alanr, Timbl
14:06:22 <Zakim> Zakim has left #awwsw
14:06:23 <hhalpin> I'd recommend reading Searle's "The Social Construction of Reality" for an analytic understanding of how concepts come in groups.
14:06:28 <mhausenblas> rrsagent, bye
14:06:28 <RRSAgent> I see no action items