Re: Tim on a stick (was Re: Telecon points)

* Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> [2003-09-24 09:51-0400]
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > > * State, or have Tim state, "Tim's solution", succinctly.
> > 
> > It's a nice idea, but I'm afraid we'll have to draw it out in
> > discussion.  Tim's stated it a few times, but never completely enough
> > for everyone.  Personally, I'm happy with his presenting and arguing
> > for bits as they are relevant to discussing particular issues.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Here is my rigid caricature of this solution.  I have, however, restricted
> the scope of information to that stored in the Semantic Web.
> 
> 0/ Names in the Semantic Web are URI references with optional fragment
>    identifiers.
> 
> 1/ The Semantic Web is fundamentally premised on the idea that there is a
>    single intended definition for each name in the Semantic Web.
> 
> 2/ The definition of a name in the Semantic Web is determined from all
>    documents stored (stored, not simply accessible) at the URI constructed
>    by removing the optional fragment identifier, if any, from the name no
>    matter which language, formal or otherwise, they are written in.
> 
> 3/ The portion of a document that contributes to the definition of a name
>    is that portion that related to the name (including fragment identifier,
>    if present).

This to my mind is the real crunch: I don't believe it is possible to
have a theory of relevance, such that we can distinguish between the 
assertions 'http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name' can make authoritatively
regarding the meaning/definition/referent of the property 'foaf:name', 
versus those assertions it just happens to be making in passing. 

I've other concerns with the strawman'd position, but until someone here 
claims it as their own and champions it, I'm happy not to trouble the 
list with them.

Dan
> 
> 4/ [Optional] The above is true only for names when they are used as
>    properties, not when they are used for other purposes.
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> 
> PS:  I disagree strongly with all of the above except point 0.

Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2003 09:58:41 UTC