- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:55:20 -0400
- To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: "Ed Davies" <edavies@nildram.co.uk>, www-tag@w3.org
On 7/25/07, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote: > >> 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? > > In RDF, usage suitability can be a property of a name. For example, I > try not to use names for RDF classes and properties that begin http:// > and whose domain name does not seem to be paid up for at least 2-3 years. Interesting point. But if they're not substitutable, then I wouldn't call them aliases. I suppose this relates to my earlier point that I don't expect to see owl:sameAs used cross-domain. It seems to me as if the folks who told Chris he could use owl:sameAs were doing so using *indirect* identification, i.e. saying the equivalent of "10 Downing Street" owl:sameAs "British government"[1] (using my argument that introducing agency turns direct into indirect identification). I interpreted its definition as being in terms of direct identification, but I suppose indirect isn't an unreasonable interpretation. But it does mean that the current definition is either wrong or ambiguous. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#indirect-identification 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 14:55:28 UTC