W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > March 2011

Re: summary so far.

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 10:51:38 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTimNkK8MwUSEs34Uaux-c0JaT-14xAeLhF-FrMY6@mail.gmail.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> yay, definitely getting there! follow up at the bottom to keep it in
> context:
>
> Nathan wrote:
>>

> for all URI <u> in class RB, <u> is bound to a set SR of representations
> {Ri,i=1...n}, to a Thing.

I have a feeling you have a use/mention confusion here.  RB is not a
class of URIs.  And usually one uses the <> (in RDF at least) for
references to the referent of a URI...

and you're not using 'bound to' the way I do in the axioms, so I'd
prefer a different word or symbol...  I would have said that every
member of SR is bound to the URI u (using the term as in the axioms...
not that it's beautiful terminology) (note no angle brackets)

> for all URI <u> in class RB, there exists a set SA of agents {Ai,i=1...n}
> for which <u> is a name for SR or T.

agents that use u as a name for ...

> hashes [
>  for some <u> in class RB there exists a class of sub-URIs of the form
> <u#f>.
>  for all <u#f> in <u>, <u#f> is bound to SR.
>  if there exists 1...n <u#f> in <u>, then <u> refers to SR and T == SR.
>  for all a in SA, <u> refers to SR and T == SR.
> ] (
>  - easy
>  - doesn't cover the cases where you can't use <u#f>
>  - it's still true that:
>    for some a in SA, <u> refers to T
>    for some a in SA, <u> refers to SR
>    for some <u> in class RB, T != SR.
>    for some <u> in class RB, T == SR.
> )

sorry, not getting the consequence of this.

> slashes [
>  for some a in SA, <u> refers to T
>  for some a in SA, <u> refers to SR
>  for some <u> in class RB, T != SR.
>  for some <u> in class RB, T == SR.
>  if T == SR then for all a in SA, <u> refers to SR and T == SR.
>  if T != SR and no a in SA uses <u> for SR, then <u> refers to T.
>  if T != SR and some a in SA uses <u> for SR, then T == SR && T != SR.
> ] (
>  - the problem
> )
>
> if any of the following conditions is true, then there no problem:
>
>  if T == SR
>  for all a in SA, <u> refers to T

"a uses u to refer to T"

>  for all a in SA, <u> refers to SR
>
> the only "fix" is to make ( for all <u> in RB, T == SR ) universally true
> (<u> == IR), or make it universally false ( can't use <u> as a name).
> there's no way to enforce either.

Only if you care about interoperability. You could have two
non-communicating communities (the inference community and the LOD
community, say) that use the URI differently.

> There is one vital question here though, if T != SR, is there anything one
> could even say about SR, the only things that could be said, would be those
> that would be true for all R in SR, which isn't much if anything - can we
> identify what these things are?

Given enough explanation you can say whatever you like about anything.
The question here is not whether you can say something, but how you
say it.

> Cheers,
>
> Nathan
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:52:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 2 March 2011 15:52:10 GMT