- From: Conal Tuohy <conal.tuohy@vuw.ac.nz>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:12:38 +1200
- To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
- Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>, www-tag@w3.org, semantic-web@w3.org, Linking Open Data <linking-open-data@simile.mit.edu>
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 01:49 -0400, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote: > > I suppose that's just a long-winded way of pointing out that > > each of us means something different by "Tim" (even the > > "independent observer"). We all have the same physical person > > in mind, but we each introduce our own biases in the > > information we publish about him, and that's what makes our > > URIs directly identify different resources. > > I completely agree: each of those four URIs may name a different (though > related) notion of TimBL -- a point that Pat Hayes has pressed several > times over the years. For the most part, the only way one can be sure > that two URIs really do name the same resource is if they are provably > defined to do so, such as: (a) if they are the same URI; (b) if one is > declared by its owner to be owl:sameAs the other; or (c) if the URI > declarations are exactly the same. Why (in b above) only "by its owner"? Is it because only the owner of URI A "really knows" what URI A means? If so, how does the owner of URI A know what URI B "really" means?
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2007 06:39:24 UTC