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

RE: My action item on Moby Dec, issue 14, etc

From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 23:24:01 +0100
To: "'Jonathan Borden'" <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004601c260f4$6cb911f0$887ba8c0@mitchum>


> From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jonathan@openhealth.org] 
>
> I have no idea why you conclude that "in the 
> RDF model., each URIref must be disambiguated"? 
> What does this mean and why do you say this? 
>

Take a look at <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/RDF_MT_figure1.jpg>,
particularly the text "IS assigns one thing to each name in the
vocabulary". Why does IS exist if what you say is the case?

> Named nodes (in RDF -- my use of the term "node" 
> is identical to RDF) are labelled/named by a single URIref. 

Yes. And this occurs through the IS mapping. It is not axiomatic in RDF
that URIrefs name one resource. Consider:

"1.3 Interpretations

The following definition of an interpretation is couched in mathematical
language, but what it amounts to intuitively is that an interpretation
provides just enough information about a possible way the world might be
- a 'possible world' - in order to fix the truth-value (true or false)
of any ground RDF triple. It does this by specifying for each uriref,
what it is supposed to be a name of; and also, if it is used to indicate
a property, what values that property has for each thing in the
universe. "

Bill de hÓra 
--
Propylon
www.propylon.com 

 
Received on Friday, 20 September 2002 18:25:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:11 GMT