W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2001

Re: A use case for anon nodes - action from telecon

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 11:51:55 +0100
Message-ID: <3B56BBCB.F64CCA1E@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
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 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:38:12 EDT