Re: Ed's / Ian's View

David Booth wrote:
> You have almost touched on a key element: that there is an implicit
> assumption that necessarily U1(x) != U2(x).  But this is a fallacy.
> *Some* applications need to distinguish U1(x) from U2(x), but others
> don't.  I.e., applications that have no need to distinguish U1(x) from
> U2(x) will produce correct output even when U1(x) is assumed to be
> owl:sameAs U2(x), just as applications that only need to distinguish
> chocolate from vanilla may not care if different varieties of vanilla
> are conflated.

x = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein
q1: who is the author of x?
q2: when was x published?
U₁(x) = what you see when you deref x in a browser (document, page, ir)
U₂(x) = the book, also known as "The Modern Prometheus"

Show me that you can answer those q1 and q2 about both U₁(x) and U₂(x) 
assuming that all the statements needed are published using the dc 
vocab, and associated with x as the subject.

The whole reason we even need to say U₁(x) and U₂(x) in this 
conversation is because x is being used to refer to two distinct things, 
and I can assure you that U₁(x) != U₂(x) is a truth, not a fallacy, 
regardless of whether that truth matters to some application or not. 
(note: some, not all).

The day you can say the above for *all* applications (given this 
scenario of some name referring to two things) rather than some, is the 
day when it'll be an acceptable solution, until then it, like most of 
the other proposals, only addresses *some* situations. We need a for all 
here.

Best,

Nathan

Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2011 21:21:10 UTC