- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:00:51 +0000
- To: W3C HCLSIG hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
On 24 Mar 2009, at 05:06, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
[snip]
> Michel,
>
> 303 redirection serves a single purpose: enforcement of the Identity
> principle for discrete data objects. If a datum lacks identity it
> cannot in away be resourceful.
Identity principle? Resourceful? What is it to be resourceful?
In general (i.e., in the broadest context) the identity conditions of
data objects typically is not their name. E.g., consider lexical form
and xsd:integer.
> The identity principle also implies that "Identity" stands alone
> from all else, you cannot intermngle with "representation", for
> instance.
[snip]
I strongly recommend not appealing to potentially tendentious and hard
to explicate, much less empirical support, principles in these
discussions. One is more likely to communication across conceptual
perspectives if one operationalizes one's concepts.
> If you are going to honor the Identity principle on the Web,
There's no honor among engineers.
> in an unobtrusive manner (i.e., leverage ubiquity of HTTP) there is
> no way around the above.
>
> The whole essence of the Linked Data Web comes down to distillation
> of Data Objects from the host Information Resources (documents) i.e,
> making the Data Objects
These captializations scare me.
[snip]
> Scientist are always preoccupied with,
I'm a scientist! I'm not always so preoccupied with database records!
Except DBLP!
> and interested in, database records because science lives and dies
By funding!
By publications? Backstabbing? Politics? Grad students and postdocs?
Am I warm?
> by the following processes:
Damnit! I got it wrong AGAIN! ;)
> 1. Hypothesis
> 2. Observation
> 3. Conclusion
Tendentious (and very naive) philosophy of science seems poor ground
upon which to sprout the tree of Engineering Consensus!
Seriously, there's a huge, rich literature about the nature and
practice of science. Very little of it would embrace this description
even as a crude formulation.
> The steps above are about units of observation ("data"), contextual
> representation ("information"), and conclusions ("knowledge").
Such scare quotes are scary! I don't know what a "unit" of
"observation" is, but the history of such concepts as observation
sentences in Carnap doesn't leave me with much hope.
So, at this point, I can't distill out your position, much less how
all this is supposed to support that position. Is it really necessary?
Aren't there simpler, more direct considerations?
> In my experience, scientists are completely preoccupied with Data :-)
Well, I hope I've now embiggened your experience!
Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2009 08:01:28 UTC