Re: SKOS dodges the identity crisis?

Al et al.,
	While I think the characterization of the concept is good, as the
URIs do actually *are* a description of a concept. However, where the use 
value of a URI for a concept is because the concept itself, not a  
particular description of the concept, is denoted by the URI. The key 
issue in my mind here is interoperability - so you *can* of course use 
any URI to denote any concept or description of a concept you want in your 
RDF theoretically (I mean, I can make an RDF statement saying http://www.google.com denotes the 
string "green cheese", and can create my own URI  http://www.example.com/green 
cheese which I say denotes "google"!) and you  can give them separate URIs
 - but what does that buy you? It seems that's what people want to know is 
that if I have URIA and you have URIB, does URIA denote the same thing as 
URIB - and feel free to replace URIB and URIA with the words "metadata 
about URIX". Henry and I's analysis believes a sort of "equivalence class" 
or statistical approximation of an equivalence (it's 80 percent likely URIA
denotes the same thing as URIB) created either by hand of via a search  
engine is the way to go, thus Web Proper Names.

http://www.webpropernames.org/paper/


			Cheers,
				Harry



 On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Miles, AJ 
(Alistair) wrote:

> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I did some more thinking about SKOS, and wrote up an idea at:
> 
> http://esw.w3.org/topic/SkosDev/DodgeIdentity
> 
> I would very much like to know if you think this looks sound, workable,
> reasonable, viable, or not ... all thoughts welcomed :)
> 
> We really have to get this sorted.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Al.
> 
> ---
> Alistair Miles
> Research Associate
> CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> Building R1 Room 1.60
> Fermi Avenue
> Chilton
> Didcot
> Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
> United Kingdom
> Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
> Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
> 
> 
> 

-- 
				--harry

	Harry Halpin
	Informatics, University of Edinburgh 	
        http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin