Re: [pedantic-web] Re: The OWL Ontology URI

On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 00:03 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
> [ . . . ]  Suppose A  
> is an RDF graph, and B is an RDF/XML file which encodes/is a surface  
> syntax of/represents (choose your favorite terminology) that graph A.  
> And suppose U is a URI which "identifies" B, in the sense that what  
> you get back, when you do an HTTP GET using U, is a  
> 'representation' (in the REST sense) of B with a 200 code attached.  
> That is, the relationship between U and B is exactly like that between  
> the URI of a web page, and the web page itself.
> 
> My point is simply that under these circumstances, we are pretty much  
> obliged by http-range-14, as I understand it, to say that U denotes B;  
> that is, it denotes the thing it HTTP-identifies. 

I agree.

> And if it denotes B,  
> then it cannot denote A, since (for other reasons, on which we agree)  
> A is not identical to B. 

But I disagree with that conclusion, because as explained in 
http://dbooth.org/2009/denotation/ 
I think U can perfectly well ambiguously denote *both* A and B.  For
example:

 - one particular RDF semantics interpretation 
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#interp 
of a graph involving U may map U to A while a different interpretation
maps U to B; or

 - in one RDF graph, all interpretations map U to A, whereas in a
different RDF graph, all interpretations map U to B.



-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
Cleveland Clinic (contractor)

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.

Received on Friday, 14 May 2010 02:22:08 UTC