- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:56:46 -0400
- To: "Ed Davies" <edavies@nildram.co.uk>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On 7/25/07, Ed Davies <edavies@nildram.co.uk> wrote: > Doesn't "alias" (or owl:sameAs) mean just "refers to > the same thing", not "identical for all possible > purposes"? >From the spec; "The built-in OWL property owl:sameAs links an individual to an individual. Such an owl:sameAs statement indicates that two URI references actually refer to the same thing: the individuals have the same "identity"." -- http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#sameAs-def And Merriam Webster defines "alias" as "otherwise called" -- http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/alias Both of those say to me that we're talking about the concept of different names (URIs) for the same thing (resource). > I don't think two terms being aliases (or > owl:sameAs) implies that: > > 1. they take exactly the same amount of ink to > print in 37 point Arial. > > 2. they collate in the same order in all languages. > > 3. they hurt your throat the same amount to say. > > 4. they are as easy as each other to remember. Those are properties of the name itself. Obviously the names are different. > > 5. they are suitable for use in the same > circumstances. > > 6. they have dictionary definitions which are > word-for-word identical. No? I would expect both of those would hold. Why wouldn't they? Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2007 13:56:50 UTC