- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 17:42:05 +0100
- To: "'Michael Mealling'" <michael@neonym.net>, Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
- Cc: "'Jonathan Borden'" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>, "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>, "'Norman Walsh'" <Norman.Walsh@sun.com>, www-tag@w3.org
Michael, > > Nonetheless if RDF held an 1-1 mappings as an axiomatic, the MT > > wouldn't require the IS mapping. > > Ok, here's the issue: how can you not deductively conclude that mappings > are 1:1 exclusive given the definition of a resource as that thing that > is named by a URI? That a URI maps to a single resource seems a reasonable conclusion - actually it seems more like a definition or an axiom. That a resource is mapped from a single URI... I'm not sure the is so clear. The mapping may be N:1 (URI->Resource). > > > I suppose one could argue that IS is a > > redundant artefact from model theoretic semantics in the large, or the > > Web architecture provides IS 'for free' due to authoritative naming; > > neither seems an entirely satisfactory way to show the seamntic and the > > actual Web tee up axiomatically. > > And that may mean you need some layer in between RDF and URIs > that makes it satisfactory. URIs only give you a unique string denoting > one and only one Resource. They don't give you anything else. Not > equivalence, meaning, resolvability, persistence, useability, available > representations, etc... > Nothing.... > > -MM > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------ > Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | urn:pin:1 > michael@neonym.net | | http://www.neonym.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Stuart
Received on Friday, 20 September 2002 12:42:42 UTC