W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > February 2007

Re: [BioRDF] URI Resolution

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 17:29:49 -0500
Message-ID: <45C7AFDD.7030208@musc.edu>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
CC: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org

> However you define identity, the point remains the same. If you say 
> that two URIs denote the same thing, then retrieve them and find that 
> your chosen definition of identity doesn't say they are the same, then 
> you have "lied" in making the sameAs statement. Failing that you may 
> use whatever the first successful getMethod retrieves.
The same XML (or HTML) document with different character encoding can 
end up in different byte-streams.  Hence, if there are two identical 
ontologies backed up at different locations but served with different 
character encoding, would you consider they "lied" if they say that they 
are the same thing by owl:sameAs? Or if one document has a "meaningless" 
empty space added at somewhere in one of the document, you would 
consider they lied too about making the assertion?

Do you agree that your proposal alters the meanings of owl:sameAs, which 
must be treated a bit differently. In other words, an RDF engine would 
need two operating modes and switched it on/off depending on if what is 
needed is to resolve URI or do a general reasoning.
> I remember we discussed this problem before.  And my point was that 
> the RDF world is an open world.  Therefore, given one URI, you need to 
> have a solution that can promise the knowledge of all possible URI's 
> resolution.
> The "therefore" doesn't follow from the antecedent in any way that I 
> can discern.
Unless you already know all the possible URIs that your knowledge base 
are going to deal with, (which then means you are sort of assuming a 
closed world, right?)  how you are going to describe the resolution of 
any possible URIs?  Sure, we can have a default mode saying that if 
there is no "getMethod" defined, then treat the URI as it is.  So no 
matter what you propose, there is always a possibility that some URIs 
may break.  Hence, your solution will not be a complete solution, will it?
> OK. Perhaps we should leave it at that.
I guess so. Neither of us can convince the other. :-)


Received on Monday, 5 February 2007 22:30:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:29 UTC