- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 11:51:55 +0100
- To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- CC: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Aaron Swartz wrote: > Heh, it identifies one "conceptual mapping" perhaps, Just so. > but that > can map to other things. Otherwise lists wouldn't make much > sense, now would they? Lists? What lists don't make sense? > > > The essence of this issue seems to involve the idea that the > > act of naming something in the internet is somehow, special. > > That if a processor is told that something has URI ISBN-12345 > > or whatever, it had better not match that with anything that > > it does not 'know' is named ISBN-12345. On the other hand, > > if a node is not named, then it can be matched with anything > > that matches its properties. > > Pat Hayes has said repeatedly that one can pretty much only I've never found "proof by repeated assertion" entirely convincing. > infer from an existential the same things they could from a > specific identifier. We need to be clear which is the tail and which is the dog here. The role of the formal model is precisely define/explain the intended semantics of RDF. We choose the semantics - the logicians figure out how to express it. Not the other way round. > Obviously, he has studied this more than I > have, but it seems to me that people are asking anonymous nodes > to mean more than they really do. I find the circularity of that argument rather beautiful. Brian
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2001 06:54:29 UTC