- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 15:41:07 -0500
- To: "'Bill de hOra'" <dehora@eircom.net>, "'WWW TAG'" <www-tag@w3.org>
Yeah. Got that bit. I don't keep up with RDF, but confusing a variable with a constant would be a serious bug. How did that one get past TimBL if he is a prime supporter for RDF and the Semantic Web? It seems RDF needs PUBLIC IDs. My point was that forcing a name to be a control without considering information policies can open up security holes but that sort of thing can be handled by the dissemination management system upstream from striping URIs and SHOULD gives us the necessary leeway. I won't go into the issues on open channels. Sad sign of the times. len -----Original Message----- From: Bill de hOra [mailto:dehora@eircom.net] > This isn't an issue. It is a philosophical debate It seems to be a genuine issue for RDF. At a model-theoretic level, RDF depends on the idea that URIs are logical constants; further that they are constant over time. Having such constants bound to more than one thing, especially at the same time leads to ambiguity and very possibly bogus entailments. Fwiw, my opinion is that we won't be able to specify ambiguity away for the Semantic Web, much as we'd like to, and that this is less of an issue for the current Web machinery, but it does no harm to make people aware of the issue in the RDF context.
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2002 16:41:39 UTC