- From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
- Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 07:30:17 +0100
- To: "'Jonathan Borden'" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
> On Behalf Of Jonathan Borden > > A slightly subtle point, but when we say that a URI > necessarily identifies only one concept, this is saying that > the _name_ of the concept is the URI. Now people may assert > different things about the concept, and these assertions may > be contradictory, but they are identifying the same concept > if they use the same name for the concept, i.e. the same URI. At best what you're describing is violent agreement. But there will be cases where people are just describing two different things using the same name. ie there is genuine ambiguity that requires resolution. What the architecture needs is an efficient and effective means to query the authority, calculate a confidence in an assertion, or both. I suspect we have most of what we need already, it's a matter of getting people to adjust their assumptions on what is desirable. Tim Bray's analogy to hypertext and 404 is exactly appropriate. > But again the name of the concept is > the URI so each use of the URI by definition talks about the > same concept. I'm sorry. This is simply not the case, on the web or off it. regards, Bill de hÓra .. Propylon www.propylon.com
Received on Friday, 2 August 2002 02:32:00 UTC