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

RE: Explicit Disambiguation Via RDF bNodes, more Process

From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 00:52:51 +0200
To: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EBEPLGMHCDOJJJPCFHEFCENHFNAA.danny666@virgilio.it>
blah below, to cut it short :

I'm saying that if

the URI http://www.markbaker.ca/index.html is equivalent to the set

[markBakerThePerson(person), theWebSiteAtThisURL(website),

where markBakerThePerson, theWebSiteAtThisURL etc are just local identifiers
I'm using - anonymous nodes even - for elements in the URI, which is a set
btw, - and (person), (website) etc are types/classes defined in shared

and 'livesIn' and 'respondsToGET' are predicates in shared schema that apply
to (URI.person, place) and (URI.website, string)

and someones states that http://www.markbaker.ca/index.html  livesIn Miami

and someone states that http://www.markbaker.ca/index.html respondsToGET

then I can reasonably ask

Where does  http://www.markbaker.ca/index.html  live?

and expect the answer 'Miami'.


>I don't think that the people on this list are representative.  The
>people on this list enjoy intellectual debate, and are deliberately
>trying to come up with various alternatives.  That's successful
>brainstorming and opinionated discourse; it doesn't prove a crisis in
>the status of URIs as identifiers.

Gawd help us if they are, but if people here are able to bend & twist the
meaning of URIs, doesn't that suggest at least that it is possible? (and
thus probable 'in the wild')

>> rigid mapping to last without breaking in an environment with
>> millions (billions?) of users seems to me to be optimistic, to say the
>> least. If you can give me one example in the history of humanity where
>> such a thing has remained constant, then I'll concede the point.
>This is a poor argument.  Words mean things.  Just because there are
>rare cases where a word will be used with connotation that is opposite
>its normal connotation does not mean that words are meaningless.  Are
>words "too far gone"?

If systems are designed so that 'one' represents 1.00, then they may not
work if someone uses 'one' to mean 1.01.
Whereas if systems are designed to accept 'one' as 1 +/- 0.1 then there's no
problem. This in a way is orthogonal - better would be to say that 'one' can
mean 1.00 or a string of characters or myself.

>I don't have to prove that ambiguity never existed to assert that
>gratuitous ambiguity is a stupid strategy.

Eye for 1.00 am trying to look at ways of reducing ambiguity.

>> doesn't help. They each have a role in different problem-solving
>> scenarios : the first is critical to most forms of communication, the
>There is only one very simple problem being solved here.  If I want to
>allow millions of people to independently share their assertions and
>know that they are talking about the same "thing", how do I identify a
>> look at the reality of the URI rather than trying to change it or
>invent a
>Yes.  The reality is that URIs which use http: refer to something that
>uses HTTP -- a web page.

Hmm - I believe it might have been said before on this list - 'a web page'
is only one possible interpretation, even accepting that the http: means the
HTTP protocol.

>> magic "UTI" to replace it (apart from locally - no problem with UTIs
>> there).
>But locality is the opposite of the semantic web, so I guess this is
>off-topic.  And the idea of a "local universal identifier" sounds pretty

What I meant here is that the application on machine X may use the
identifier ABCD to refer to the web page http://... and all the assertions
it finds about it. It may use another identifier to refer to the person
who's home page shares the same URI.

>> I think viewing the URI as a set and using context within inference is
>> probably the best pragmatic solution.
>I have no idea what you are talking about.

see top

  Do you have an example of
>how to solve the simple problem I pointed out?

Sorry, I've gone back through the last dozen or so of your posts and I can't
find the problem - could you please repeat it. Here's a question in the
meantime, you said :

The anonymous (or named if you want) node:
[http://www.markbaker.ca/index.html dc:Creator]
Identifies the person.

The node:
Identifies the page.

If I am to use this information in my inference system, how exactly do I
know that the first of these identifies the person, and the second the page?
(and yes, I would like you to spell it out)

Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 18:58:27 UTC

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