Re: summary so far.

snipped..

Nathan wrote:
> Nathan wrote:
>> Jonathan Rees wrote:
>> each URI is optionally bound to a set of representations over time, 
>> each representation is anonymous (only existentially quantified) by 
>> default (*) and late bound to the URI as a product of the 
>> dereferencing process, thus if one representation has been bound to a 
>> specific URI then that URI belongs to the class of things for which 
>> representations have been bound. I'll that class of things RB for now 
>> (has a [R]epresentation [B]ound).
>>
>> * given two identical representations, you cannot tell what they are 
>> representations of, if they are representations of the same thing, or 
>> two different things.
>>
>> Okay, I used representation above to mean content+meta, nothing more, 
>> nothing less, and doesn't mean that it's a "representation" of 
>> anything. I've purposefully not used the term information resource, 
>> because at this moment in time I can't bring myself to say any more 
>> than there are URIs, some URIs have had content+meta's bound to them, 
>> and thus we could make a proper subclass which is the class of all 
>> URIs for which a content+meta has been bound.
> 
> for all URI <u> in class RB, <u> is bound to a set SR of representations 
> {Ri,i=1...n}, and to a Thing.

if T == SR then it's an information resource.

in english, if <u> is consistently used to that which is reflected by 
the set of representations over time, then <u> refers to an information 
resource.

the problem is that often T != SR, and <u> is used to refer to T, which 
means you can't refer to SR, and to that, there is no solution. 
Compounding it, is that if some agents use <u> to refer to SR, then 
there's ambiguity. And compounding that, is that even if we introduce a 
rule where T == SR, then some agents will still use <u> to refer to 
something that by the rule isn't named.

it's clearly a problem in the domain of agents :p

going to check all this against IR axioms.

nathan

> for all URI <u> in class RB, there exists a set SA of agents 
> {Ai,i=1...n} for which <u> is a name for SR or T.
> 
> hashes [
>   for some <u> in class RB there exists a class of sub-URIs of the form 
> <u#f>.
>   for all <u#f> in <u>, <u#f> is bound to SR.
>   if there exists 1...n <u#f> in <u>, then <u> refers to SR and T == SR.
>   for all a in SA, <u> refers to SR and T == SR.
> ] (
>  - easy
>  - doesn't cover the cases where you can't use <u#f>
>  - it's still true that:
>     for some a in SA, <u> refers to T
>     for some a in SA, <u> refers to SR
>     for some <u> in class RB, T != SR.
>     for some <u> in class RB, T == SR.
> )
> 
> slashes [
>   for some a in SA, <u> refers to T
>   for some a in SA, <u> refers to SR
>   for some <u> in class RB, T != SR.
>   for some <u> in class RB, T == SR.
>   if T == SR then for all a in SA, <u> refers to SR and T == SR.
>   if T != SR and no a in SA uses <u> for SR, then <u> refers to T.
>   if T != SR and some a in SA uses <u> for SR, then T == SR && T != SR.
> ] (
>  - the problem
> )
> 
> if any of the following conditions is true, then there no problem:
> 
>   if T == SR
>   for all a in SA, <u> refers to T
>   for all a in SA, <u> refers to SR
> 
> the only "fix" is to make ( for all <u> in RB, T == SR ) universally 
> true (<u> == IR), or make it universally false ( can't use <u> as a 
> name). there's no way to enforce either.
> 
> There is one vital question here though, if T != SR, is there anything 
> one could even say about SR, the only things that could be said, would 
> be those that would be true for all R in SR, which isn't much if 
> anything - can we identify what these things are?

Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 13:28:38 UTC