- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 12:28:58 -0600
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Mar 2, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Nathan wrote: > Jonathan Rees wrote: >> You're generting stuff more quickly than I can process it. I will be >> selective and not comment on everything that I could. > > np, feedback, or a call to discuss, the last iteration: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-awwsw/2011Mar/0014.html > would be appreciated, and how it maps out to, or affects ir-axioms. > >> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 5:49 AM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: >>> Jonathan Rees wrote: >>> now this is interesting, and I'm unsure exactly how to say it, but if we >>> work from HTTP Resource upwards to URI, such that we consider an HTTP >>> Resource as being a distinct object for which all URIs used to refer to it >>> are bound to that HTTP Resource (the URIs are a property of the HTTP >>> Resource), then we come to the wrong conclusions, and things break. >> No. Only TimBL's requirement that these be distinct breaks. (Maybe >> that's what you mean by "things" but you need to be more specific.) > > and RDF's requirement, in fact URIs is it not, that two different URIs refer to two different things unless explicitly stated that they refer to the same thing? No. RDF (and RDFS, OWL etc.) make no assumptions about unique naming. Any two different URIs might or might not refer to the same thing. Pat ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 18:30:50 UTC