W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2002

RE: TB16 Re: Comments on arch doc draft

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 15:41:07 -0500
Message-ID: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B63C@HQ5>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:09 GMT