W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > June 2007

Re: homonym URIs (Re: What if an URI also is a URL)

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:46:23 -0500
Message-Id: <p06230916c295cb5e9c51@[10.100.0.28]>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>, semantic-web@w3.org

>On 12 Jun 2007, at 22:07, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>To pick up just one point: Where do you draw the line between 
>>>harmful punning and efficiency-increasing punning? Any rules of 
>>>thumb for when it is OK? Why is it OK to pun with email addresses, 
>>>but not with wives?
>>
>>Because people and email addresses are so different that almost 
>>nothing you ever want to say about or do to one is ever said about 
>>or done to the other. If you email to PatHayes, you must have meant 
>>to PatHayes' email address. If you assert that my email address has 
>>two children, you must have meant me. With two people (or two 
>>mailboxes) however, things are different. There really is no way to 
>>tell then which is meant: you can't locally disambiguate the 
>>punning.
>
>Here are two web pages about me:
>
>    <http://richard.cyganiak.de/>
>    <http://ontoworld.org/wiki/Richard_Cyganiak>
>
>One is in German, the other in English:
>
>    <http://richard.cyganiak.de/> dc:language "de" .
>    <http://ontoworld.org/wiki/Richard_Cyganiak> dc:language "en" .
>
>You say it's OK to use a web page URL to denote the person it's about, so:
>
>    <http://richard.cyganiak.de/> a foaf:Person .
>    <http://ontoworld.org/wiki/Richard_Cyganiak> a foaf:Person .
>
>Both clearly denote the same person, so we can confidently state:
>
>    <http://richard.cyganiak.de/>
>       owl:sameAs <http://ontoworld.org/wiki/Richard_Cyganiak> .

Ah, no. You can't do that so, er, confidently. After all, you are 
punning, using the same URI to denote several things, so you should 
only say they are equal in this strong sense when they are equal in 
ALL their uses. And of course they aren't: they denote different web 
pages.

>This allows us to conclude:
>
>    <http://richard.cyganiak.de/> dc:language "de" .
>    <http://richard.cyganiak.de/> dc:language "en" .
>
>Which is obviously wrong. So what did I do?

You overused owl:sameAs. Logical equality has to be used with care 
when punning, its true. This is why OWL 1.1 will (at the time of 
writing) have three distinct equalities, and why the CL semantics 
uses true semantic overloading rather than punning, speaking strictly.

BTW, I opposed including owl:sameAs, i.e. simple equality, into OWL 
for exactly this reason. But I was overruled :-)

>1. I used the DC, FOAF, and OWL vocabulary, which are used in 
>exactly this way all over the Semantic Web.
>2. I used an inference rule sanctioned by the OWL specifications, 
>which is used all over the Semantic Web.
>3. I used your claim that punning is OK.
>
>And I arrived at an incorrect conclusion. Why, Pat?

See above. But just using a sanctioned vocabulary is no safeguard 
against getting wrong conclusions. You MISused owl:sameAs here.

Equality is very dangerous. If I have two ontologies, one which 
treats human beings as agent continuants and refers to me using 
<http://BOF/PatHayesEnduring/>, and the other which treats humans as 
a subclass of SpatiotemporalThings and uses a process-based ontology, 
and refers to me as <http://FourDrUs/PatHayesTheLife/> and someone 
casually asserts

<http://BOF/PatHayesThePerson/> owl:sameAs <http://FourDrUs/PatHayes/> .

because they both denote the same person, you will get the same kind 
of error. Its not enough to just denote the same person, in some 
loose everyday sense of 'same': it has to denote precisely the same 
*ontological entity*. Those things can be very exactly drawn, and 
have all kinds of metaphysical superstructure attached to them by the 
ontologies they happen to be used in. In the case of punning, it has 
to be thought of as a kind of n-tuple of all the things the name can 
be used to refer to. So your owl:sameAs was just false, sorry.

>>So the rule of thumb, which can be made operationally quite 
>>precise, is that punning is OK if (there is a very high probability 
>>that) there is enough contextual information available at the point 
>>of use to figure out which of the various meanings is intended.
>
>I think on the open Semantic Web, there is a very high probability 
>that your URI will end up in places where that contextual 
>information is not available and thus the information consumer 
>cannot figure out which of the various meanings was intended. It 
>seems to me that, following your own guideline, we'd have to 
>conclude that punning on the Semantic Web is almost never OK.

Hmmm. You may be right. Certainly it would be safer, if we could 
manage it. But I don't think we can possibly manage it.

But you have made a very nice case, which nobody has made to me before. Thanks.

Pat



>
>Richard
>
>>
>>Pat
>>
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>Richard
>>>
>>>>But the appropriate thing to say is not to denigrate punning, but 
>>>>to explain what is wrong with doing it badly.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>  And what about a URI
>>>>>  > that I own and wish it to denote, say, the planet
>>>>>>  Venus, or my pet cat? What do I do, to attach the
>>>>>>  URI to my intended referent for it?
>>>>>
>>>>>You publish a document (an ontology) so it's available through that URI.
>>>>>If it's a hash URI, you publish the ontology at the non-hash version.
>>>>>If it's a slash URI, you publish the ontology at the far end of a 303
>>>>>redirect.  And you content-negotiate HTML and RDF.
>>>>>
>>>>>So when users paste that URI into their browser, they get the official
>>>>>documentation about it.
>>>>
>>>>None of that attaches a URI to my cat (though see below)
>>>>
>>>>>And when RDF software dereferences that URI, it gets some logical
>>>>>formulas which should be understood (like the HTML) to be asserted by the
>>>>>URI's owner/host/publisher.  Those formulas constrain the possible
>>>>>meanings of that URI, relative to other URIs.
>>>>
>>>>Neither does any of that (and in this case, I can *prove* it, 
>>>>using Herbrand's theorem.)
>>>>
>>>>>  They can't nail a URI to
>>>>>Venus
>>>>
>>>>Quite. In fact, none of this can nail a URI to ANYTHING other 
>>>>than something accessible using a transfer protocol.
>>>>
>>>>>, but they can use other ontologies to provide useful (and possibly
>>>>>very constraining) information, like that it's an astronomical body with
>>>>>a mass of about 5e+24kg.
>>>>
>>>>You are begging the question. Suppose an ontology asserts
>>>>
>>>>ex:Venus rdf:type ex:AstronomicalBody .
>>>>
>>>>Now, what ties that object URI to the actual concept of being an 
>>>>astronomical body? And so on for all the other URIs in all the 
>>>>other OWL/RDF ontologies. The best you can do is to appeal to the 
>>>>power of model theory to sufficiently constrain the 
>>>>interpretations of the entire global Web of formalized 
>>>>information. But that argument from Herbrand's theorem 
>>>>(basically, if it has a model at all then it has one made 
>>>>entirely of symbols) applies just as well no matter how large the 
>>>>ontology is.
>>>>
>>>>The only way out of this is to somewhere appeal to a use of the 
>>>>symbolic names - in this case, the IRIs or URIrefs - outside the 
>>>>formalism itself, a use that somehow 'anchors' or 'grounds'  them 
>>>>to the real world they are supposed to refer to. If we all assume 
>>>>that English words are so grounded (not a bad assumption) then 
>>>>this can be done in principle by using the URI in English 
>>>>sentences or to other kinds of representation which are widely 
>>>>accepted as real-world identifiers, like SS numbers or facial 
>>>>images. I did all three in
>>>>
>>>>http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/PatHayes.html
>>>>
>>>>If the TAG said this somewhere, and recommended how to do it, 
>>>>that would be great.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>My advice here is, I confess, not widely followed.  But I hear more and
>>>>>more people converging on the idea that this is both practical and
>>>>>likely to be sufficiently effective.
>>>>
>>>>I agree. Still, its important to describe it properly. It doesn't 
>>>>mean that URIs have a unique denotation.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>  The point surely is that URIs used to refer (not
>>>>>>  as in HTTP, but as in OWL) do *not* have a
>>>>>>  standardized meaning. Standards are certainly a
>>>>>>  chore to create, but they only go so far. OWL
>>>>>>  defines the meanings of the OWL namespace, but it
>>>>>>  does not define the meanings of the FOAF
>>>>>>  vocabulary,
>>>>>
>>>>>No, that's up to the owner(s) of the FOAF terms.
>>>>>
>>>>>>  or the URIrefs used in, say,
>>>>>>  ontologies published by the NIH or by JPL.
>>>>>
>>>>>And that's up to the NIH and JPL, respectively.
>>>>
>>>>I understand that. I was reacting to Tim's comments, which seemed 
>>>>to suggest that all this should be determined by 
>>>>standards-setting groups.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>  The
>>>>>>  only way those meanings can be specified is by
>>>>>>  writing ontologies: and finite ontologies do not
>>>>>>  - cannot possibly - nail down referents
>>>>>>  *uniquely*.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ah -- there we go.  There must be a long history of this subject in
>>>>>philosophy.  Can things ever be nailed down uniquely?  I haven't a clue.
>>>>>But that's the wrong question.
>>>>
>>>>Surely this is exactly the question. I didn't raise the issue, 
>>>>Tim did. There is a claim, often repeated and sometimes cited as 
>>>>doctrine, that a URI *must* identify a *single* referent. To do 
>>>>this requires that things are nailed down uniquely (isn't that 
>>>>EXACTLY what it says?) but they can't be.
>>>>
>>>>>  In this thread, I don't think we're
>>>>>talking about whether we can really be sure what we mean when we say
>>>>>such a URI denotes Venus.
>>>>
>>>>Well then don't SAY that is what you are concerned with, for 
>>>>goodness's sake. That is what is implied by "the URI for Venus 
>>>>has a unique denotation".
>>>>
>>>>>  Instead, we're talking about whether it's a
>>>>>good practice to use a single URI to denote clearly distinct things
>>>>
>>>>Aaaaargh. What do you think is 'clearly' distinct?
>>>>
>>>>The second rock from the sun might be a continuant or an 
>>>>occurrent. Those are as clearly distinct as a rock and a Roman 
>>>>goddess. I know people are a lot more familiar with the second 
>>>>kind of clearly distinct, but ontologies aren't people. And the 
>>>>first kind of difference is more important, if anything, than the 
>>>>second, for an ontology. The second kind of muddle is easily 
>>>>resolved. The first kind can be fatal.
>>>>
>>>>>,
>>>>>such as:
>>>>>    (1) the second rock from the sun
>>>>>    (2) the Roman goddess of love
>>>>>    (3) a star tennis player
>>>>>    (4) ... etc
>>>>>The term "ambiguity" covers both these issues, but we don't need to
>>>>>combine them.
>>>>
>>>>Well, you tell me how to distinguish them, then.
>>>>
>>>>>  The first is a kind of imprecision, a fuzziness
>>>>
>>>>No, its worse than that. Its like the distinction between an 
>>>>object and a process. Fuzziness/imprecision is what gives you the 
>>>>'Everest' kind of examples.
>>>>
>>>>>, while
>>>>>the second is the re-use of a word for a second meaning, a homonym.
>>>>>(Homonyms seem to be called "overloading" in computer programming.)
>>>>>
>>>>>I think we know how to work with homonyms, but since we're engineering a
>>>>>new system, it seems like a good design decision to forbid them, doesn't
>>>>>it?
>>>>
>>>>Well, actually, no. Overloading is widely used for good 
>>>>engineering reasons. And on an open system like the Web, we arent 
>>>>going to be able to prevent it happening, so we will need to have 
>>>>methods of dealing with it. Once those are deployed, one might as 
>>>>well take advantage of them. Making grand statements about what 
>>>>should be done seems to me like trying to tell evolution what it 
>>>>ought to be doing.
>>>>
>>>>Pat
>>>>--
>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
>>>>40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
>>>>Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
>>>>FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
>>>>phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>>
>>
>>--
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
>>40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
>>Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
>>FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
>>phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2007 16:46:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:57 UTC