W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > May 2010

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

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 22:21:39 -0400
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1273803699.8110.3095.camel@dbooth-laptop>
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 
I think U can perfectly well ambiguously denote *both* A and B.  For

 - one particular RDF semantics interpretation 
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:08 UTC