W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > April 2003

RE: We don't need no stinkin' identity

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:11:37 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B01B90D30@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: <uri@w3c.org>

> ...the reason Im howling so loud about this issue is that this 
> assumption (that URIrefs *must* by some magical process always be 
> uniquely grounded)...
> ...
> Again, the problem is not that the logic requires unambiguity; quite 
> the reverse, in fact: it is that imposing unambiguity as a defining 
> characteristic of URIs is logically incoherent.

Pat, I just want to try to clarify one thing. When you are speaking 
of ambiguity here, is it so that you are not speaking of overloading
of denotation, where the same URI is explicitly used to denote more
than one thing?

Rather, by ambiguity, you simply mean that a SW agent need not know
what the actual mapping from URI to thing is in order to use that URI

I myself fully agree with the latter case, that such ambiguity of
*which* thing is denoted is necessary. However (and feel free to
either agree or disagree) I feel that the former case, of overloading
of denotation, is highly undesirable and ultimately detrimental to
the SW.

I would like to see the URI specs capture both of the above in some
clear manner. I.e. (a) it is not always clear what thing a URI
denotes but that doesn't prevent the URI from being used effectively,
and (b) using a URI to denote more than one thing is bad. These
are two different kinds of ambiguity, one being good/necessary, and
the other being bad/detrimental.


Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 03:11:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:05 UTC