W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Proposed AWWW erratum on "information resources" [was Re: Fwd: Splitting vs. Interpreting]

From: Xiaoshu Wang <xiao@renci.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:02:37 -0400
Message-ID: <4A5B76BD.3030706@renci.org>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
CC: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@miscoranda.com>, www-tag@w3.org
David Booth wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 11:32 -0400, Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
>   
>> David Booth wrote:
>>     
> [ . . . ]
>   
>>> In some ways I agree, that it would be more appropriate to put the
>>> material on ambiguity in a separate document on semantic web
>>> architecture (which builds on web architecture, of course).  The reason
>>> I included it here is that that is the only way I can see to explain
>>> what's going on when someone uses the same URI for both a person and a
>>> web page, and someone else complains that that creates an ambiguity.
>>>   
>>>       
>> The word "ambiguity" is itself ambiguous without an explicitly specified 
>> ontological ground.  *Who * says, or *where* does it say, that it is 
>> ambiguous if a URI denotes both a person and a web page (what is a web 
>> page anyway)?  The semantics is, in fact, quite clear: the URI's 
>> referent is what it is -- a person and a web page.  
>>     
>
> That is only clear to applications that have no need to distinguish
> between the person and the web page.  But applications that need to
> distinguish between them will find the referent ambiguous if it is both
> a person and a web page.
>
>
>   
Do you imply that some applications must be prohibited from running on 
the Web? Or some opinions must be prohibited from expressed in the Web?  
If not, what is the point of this intended partition?

Xiaoshu
Received on Monday, 13 July 2009 18:03:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:14 GMT