W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > February 2001

RE: universal languages

From: Peter Crowther <Peter.Crowther@melandra.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:09:59 -0000
Message-ID: <B6F03FDBA149CA41B6E9EB8A329EB12D0191B2@vault.melandra.net>
To: "'Bill dehOra'" <BdehOra@interx.com>
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> From: Bill dehOra [mailto:BdehOra@interx.com]

> Parts aren't always obvious though. Boston still "exists" in 
> the sense that
> it can be a part of San Francisco if San Francisco (and 
> whoever gets to
> declare OIDs) agrees that Boston is-a-part-of San Francisco 
> and not now
> actually San Francisco.

Is this where Jim Hendler's point comes in that it depends who you believe?
One of the core ideas behind the Semantic Web is that no one body 'gets to
declare' OIDs; anybody can define OIDs and (by extension) anybody can assert
equality, is-kind-of, is-part-of, was-annexed-by, or indeed any other
relationship they wish between the OID of the existing SF-concept and the
OID of the existing Boston-concept.  What *you* (or your automated reasoner)
use as an axiom for further reasoning depends on which sources *you* use.
It would be perfectly possible for two sources you trust to assert
conflicting relationships between the concepts and (in DL terms) for all
statements about Boston-concept or SF-concept to be unsatisfiable until you
decide on which source you'll accept.

Or am I diving off on a complete tangent here?

		- Peter
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2001 11:10:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:34 UTC