W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sw-meaning@w3.org > October 2003

Re: Terms and statements (was: consensus and ownership)

From: karl <karl@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:05:07 -0400
To: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
Message-Id: <90FB679A-0035-11D8-B640-000A95718F82@w3.org>

Le Jeudi, 16 octo 2003, à 09:52 America/Montreal, Graham Klyne a écrit :
> At 08:47 16/10/03 -0400, Thomas B. Passin wrote:
>> I think that individual terms _do_ have meaning for people.  For 
>> example, the word "gravity" certainly has meaning for me.  It may 
>> well be that my sense of its meaning comes mainly from a large 
>> collection of statments that I have heard or uttered in the past - 
>> along with personal experience - but nevertheless the term itself 
>> carries meaning for me.
> So it may.  But we can never be sure that the meaning it has for you 
> is the same as the meaning it has for, say, me.  What we can agree on, 
> however, is some collection of statements using the term "gravity" 
> that we both agree to be true.  To this extent, it seems that when we 
> seek shared meaning, it's easier to find it in statements than in 
> individual terms.

so still my point about weakness about resolvable URIs for Terms. I 
think we all agree that a

	Term  has Meaning because of 	Statement 1
								 	Statement 2
								 	Statement n
If I understood, in OWL

	Term is an URI
and Statement(1 to n) are URIs too.

Do you think a system where

	Term = MUST NOT be resolvable URI
			Ex: http://www.example.org/something/nowhere/

	Statement(1 to n) = MAY be resolvable URIs

It has not necessary to be in the spec but it could be a good practice. 
Or it may be stupid. Don't hesitate to tell me.
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Thursday, 16 October 2003 20:05:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:01 UTC