W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2003

RE: URI Opacity Principle (was: Re: use of fragments as names is irresponsible)

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:13:48 -0600
Message-ID: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACE0F@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com>
To: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org]

>But that's not how KR languages are generally defined.  "An
>interpretation must specify which object in the world is referred to
>by each constant symbol."  [IAMA p186].  To say instead that "An
>interpretation must specify which objects in the world are referred to
>by each constant symbol," well..., I'm not exactly sure of all the
>consequences, but it doesn't sound so good to me.

Humans master name selectors based on context.  That's pretty much 
what semiotics is about.  KR associates logic with notation. 
URI/names have to be associated with functions (GET) which rely 
on other functions (Get(notation(locationType(mightBeAnIDMightNot)))).  

They all work.  The unreasonable position is that 
URIs just magically work. Names are assigned to thing(s).
volitionally by humans or by code.  What they do with that 
assignment is a system feature and in a namespace of overloaded 
names, that is a local system selector.  Selector conflicts 
appear at a global level as noise and that manifests as 
confusing signs/names.  Result:  the astonished primate 
looking at the blue clickable URI in the xmlns value.

What do KR systems do about noisy data?

>> We could lead if we could get the lead out.

>But do we know where to go or is there no where to go?

"Keep to the sunny side..." Mother Maybelle Carter

len
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2003 12:14:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:15 GMT