W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2003

RE: Summary (I mean it this time): URIs : How to find the ontologies behind them

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 15:43:58 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B01B90CBD@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <Eli@SemanticWorld.Org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Eli Israel [mailto:Eli@SemanticWorld.Org]
> Sent: 10 April, 2003 14:50
> To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: Summary (I mean it this time): URIs : How to find the
> ontologies behind them
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I think I am ready to summarize this thread.
> 
> 
> It is a given that the URIs in an RDF/OWL document serve only 
> as unique
> identifiers.  One can not infer meaning from the content or 
> stucture of the
> URIs.  Similarly, the URI  need not be a valid web address, 
> and if it is, it
> need not point to anything having to do with the ontology.  
> Likewise,  the
> web authority has no obligation to present, in any way, 
> information about
> the URIs that refer to it.
> 
> That being said, we agree that it would be a good idea for 
> the web authority
> refered to in the URI of a resource to provide information about that
> resource, either at the address pointed to by the URI, or 
> through another
> mechanism.

I agree fully up to this point.

> However, even if an authority provides information about a 
> resource, it can
> not be seen as either authoritative or complete.  

No, not necessarily complete, though I think it certainly can be taken
as authoritative and could be presumed to be complete insofar as
what the authority wishes to say about the resource question.

And since the SW has no innate closed world assumptions, knowledge
about a given resource is *never* complete, per se.

> Information 
> about the
> resource garnered from other sources should be given equal 
> weight.  

They *can* be given equal weight, but this is up to the consumer.

I wouldn't agree that they *should* be given equal weight, and in
practice, I don't think that will be the usual case.

> The
> provision of information by the web authority is, then, a technical
> convenience, and nothing more.

I consider it up to the consumer of information to decide what
sources they will trust and what precidence they will put on
one source over another. That said, I expect that it is most
reasonable, and will be most common, that in the event of
contradictory statements from multiple sources, the authoritative
source will be given precidence in most cases.

There need be no requirement that such would be the case, and in
fact I hope that there will be no specification whatsoever constraining
how knowledge consumers valuate input. But I still expect knowledge
provided about a resource by the web authority of a URI denoting that
resource will be given special credence on the SW by most applications.

Cheers,

Patrick

--
Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com
 
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2003 08:44:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:58 GMT