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

RE: 'shared meaning' landgrab?

From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 15:05:25 +0100
To: "'Dan Brickley'" <danbri@w3.org>, "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <seth@robustai.net>, <sean@mysterylights.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001c01c24c40$768f35b0$887ba8c0@mitchum>


> Dan Brickley
>
> MTs are happy with such trickery, since they only care that 
> there are satisfying interpetations, and not whether the 
> symbol->world mapping corresponds to the "common meaning" 
> that people have in mind when encoding claims in RDF/XML.
>
> [...] Unlike MTs, the URI spec does 
> address this aspect of the shared meaning problem, since it 
> is concerned with establishing machinery by which can write 
> down names for things in an agreed syntax and with common (if 
> tangled, poorly articulated) rules about the mapping between 
> symbol and world.

That's not at all my impression of the values URIs are supposed to
provide. From a recent thread on the TAG list, I walked away with the
strong impression that RDF, through its use of URIs has in the terms of
the model theory document, no 'unreserved vocabularies'. Because the
naming authority has the final word in ascribing a URI's denotation to a
resource, the interpretation is whatever the naming authority says it
is. 

regards,
Bill de hÓra
Received on Sunday, 25 August 2002 10:06:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:55 GMT