W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > January 2002

Re: use/mention and reification

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 19:40:06 -0500
Message-ID: <3C4F57E6.6010107@mitre.org>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
CC: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, ext Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Dan Brickley wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Frank Manola wrote:
>>Patrick Stickler wrote:
>>>On 2002-01-23 17:42, "ext Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org> wrote:
>>>>2.  If two people use different non-URIs, like "Superman" and "Clark
>>>>Kent", to refer to (apparently) different things, the same thing holds.
>>>>We know they've used different names, but we may still infer they are
>>>>talking about the same thing if we get enough additional information.
>>>The same "thing" in the universe, yes, but not the same RDF resource.
>>>We wouldn't want all nodes with Superman and ClarkKent URIs to
>>>be merged, even if we determine that they denote the same "thing".
>>If we really determined that they truly denote the same "thing", we
>>certainly would like to try! There are many highly practical examples
>>where you'd want to get rid of one of the identifiers and agree to use
>>the other.  The situation here, though, is Superman and ClarkKent URIs
>>don't, strictly speaking, denote the same thing [...].
> In which case, the example has drifted somewhat from my original intent,
> which was based on their being two names for one thing-in-the-world, ie.
> some wierd guy who's kinda strong, sometimes wears glasses and sometimes
> wears a blue and red leotard.
> The point isn't that "lois's idea of superman" and "lois's idea of clark"
> are distinct entities worthy of our concern. I was trying to make a much
> more mundane and (I'd hoped) less woolly point. Lois lacks complete
> information about the name-to-world mappings. Her views, messages, diary
> entries and (we ought to steer clear of this) mental states will all be
> affected by her lack of the 'complete picture'. On the Web, we have a
> similar situation: no one document or agent has the whole story. Often
> they're wrong, or lack information. The partial information aspect of this
> is my main concern: if *everyone* had faultless access to the meaning of
> each and every URI name, I wouldn't have my current concerns about
> reification.
> Dan

I agree 100%, which I guess means I didn't understand something about 
your original point.  Specifically, what does quoting the URIs in 
reification have to do with addressing this?


Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2002 19:32:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:54 UTC