W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > March 2011

a different way to interpret URIs that confuse IRs with their subjects

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:16:11 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTim80WwF=T60eDsS=giXAdEyK1usv9GbeBW5AS7c@mail.gmail.com>
To: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
I've been considering a different way to describe the approach
(advanced by Ed Summers and I think by Harry) where you say that there
is no conflict between saying that a single URI refers to both a canoe
and a document. Instead of interpreting "node" URIs as referring to
chimera entities, as in the current draft, you redefine all of your
properties so that they automagically coerce documents to the things
that they're about.

Attached is a picture of how this works. We start with graphs created
by two parties with incompatible models: one of them thinks the URI
refers to the document, the other thinks it refers to a canoe. A third
party tries to interpret the merged graph. All of the relevant
properties get extended so that they coerce an IR to the thing it

You'd have trouble dealing with statements of domain and range of
these properties; this would require reinterpreting domain and range
classes to include IR (or some subset of IR) as a subclass.  And if
there's any hint of functional properties, disjointness, etc. the
whole thing falls apart, but that's acknowledged - the people who like
this kind of thing also say they don't care about inference.

I have no idea what a proof of soundness of this approach would look
like, but maybe the burden of proof would be on someone who likes this
approach, not on us.

But still this approach might be easier to explain than a "chimera"
interpretation, which of course suffers most of the same drawbacks.

I know most of the people on this list are not keen on this approach.
I actually sort of like it, in a perverse way. In any case it has to
be represented and explained somehow. I'm just trying to find the
simplest possible way.  I could just cop out and say "maybe Carol can
interpret this mess without making mistakes" and leave it at that.


Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2011 14:16:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:22 UTC