RE: Summary of the QName to URI Mapping Problem

Sorry but you missed my point. It's not that the SW must ensure
the *correctness* of what is defined, but it must ensure the
*integrity* of what is defined. These are two different things.

I.e. if I use two different QNames to identify two different
resources, and those two identities are merged into a single
ambiguous identitity, then the RDF parser has failed to maintain
the integrity of my statements. Those statements may nonetheless
be incorrect or even conflicting, but that's my error, not RDF's.

It is not that ambiguities or conflicts will not arise within
SW knowledge, but if those ambiguities or conflicts are introduced
directly by the RDF parser, then that is a very bad thing indeed.

We won't ever be able to escape ambiguity on the SW, but let's not
add to it eh?

Patrick

--
Patrick Stickler                      Phone:  +358 3 356 0209
Senior Research Scientist             Mobile: +358 50 483 9453
Software Technology Laboratory        Fax:    +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center                 Video:  +358 3 356 0209 / 4227
Visiokatu 1, 33720 Tampere, Finland   Email:  patrick.stickler@nokia.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Thomas B. Passin [mailto:tpassin@home.com]
> Sent: 21 August, 2001 02:09
> To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Summary of the QName to URI Mapping Problem
> 
> 
> [<Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>]
> 
> >
> > The core mechanisms of RDF *must* preserve the integrity of 
> all data.
> >
> 
> Aha!  I'm going to strongly disagree with you here.  One of 
> the features of
> the current web is that it is not self-consistent, nor is it 
> stable in the
> sense that pointers (URLs) can be guaranteed to always point 
> to the same
> thing, or indeed to anything.  The web is extensible without central
> repositories or contracts in large part because it isn't 
> required to be
> self-consistent.  But we learn to deal with it anyway.
> 
> There is no way the SW is going to be any more 
> self-consistent or stable
> than what we have today.  Now, what's the difference between 
> inconsistent or
> changing data, and mechanisms that don't "preserve the 
> integrity of all
> data"?  Nothing, really, it's just a matter at what point 
> inconsistencies
> creep in.  In either case, our systems are going to have to 
> deal with it.
> 
> After all, no two people have exactly the same definitions of or
> connotations for any word, yet somehow we communicate and get 
> things done.
> It will have to be like that with the SW, I imagine.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Tom P
>

Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2001 01:16:54 UTC