W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Disambiguation; keeping the "U" in "URI"

From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 08:58:13 -0400
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-id: <000a01c1ec58$dc0903a0$0bf13044@tbp>
[Miles Sabin]"

> Thomas B. Passin wrote,
> > I guess we could get really radical here and say that that we alway
> > have to use templates for the predicate to provide a context for
> > understanding the nature of a resource in a statement.  That doesn't
> > appeal to me so I hope we don't have to end up there.
> Could you elaborate on _why_ you don't like that as a (partial)
> solution to the problem?
Because it is another layer to construct and process before you can
understand something.  It would be good if you could understand a statement
more or less on its own.  By "more-or-less", I'm thinking that (as things
stand now) 1) you may have to find its type from a schema or some such, and
2) you may have to get the "meaning" or at least referent of a uri from
somewhere else, like a catalog or agreed-to uris.

However, even though I hope not,  it may be necessary.  People can't
understand most things without a context for them, and even then they often
understand by comparing them to other things they do understand (I mean by
means of analogy, metaphor, etc.).  So why should we expect computers to?
Like I said earlier,  we should try hard to make the most of simplicity.  It
will be easy to fall  back on complexity.

> FWIW, I'm not claiming that it's always necessary, nor that it's
> always sufficient. It's not always necessary, because URIs need not
> always be ambiguous. And it's not always sufficient because ...
> > Probably it only pushes the issue up a level anyway.

Yes, I'm only saying I hope we can avoid another level.

> ... tho' in many cases that's all that's needed.


Tom P
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 08:52:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:40 UTC