- From: Lassila Ora (NRC/Boston) <Ora.Lassila@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:19:30 -0500
- To: "'Drew McDermott'" <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Drew, Drew McDermott wrote: > I believe I am echoing Pat Hayes when I say that I don't understand > why it is considered desirable, let alone essential, let alone > *possible*, that there be only one name for each object. What on > earth could guarantee such a thing? Lasers in space that destroy any > computer found to have a nonofficial URI for an object? > Although I *really really* wouldn't want to contribute to this waaay too long discussion, I have to say that the issue is that one would like there only to be one *object* for any *name*, not the other way around (which you seem to be talking about - and I agree with your comments there). That said, I think the possibility outlined earlier that two QNames accidentally map into one URI is so remote that I would suggest we let go of this discussion and move onto more productive things :-) Kind regards, - Ora -- Ora Lassila mailto:ora.lassila@nokia.com http://www.lassila.org/ Research Fellow, Nokia Research Center Chief Scientist, Nokia Venture Partners
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2001 14:19:44 UTC