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

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

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:44:05 -0400
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1301579045.2904.17375.camel@dbooth-laptop>
That diagram clearly reflects the "unique identity" world view.  I'm
going to focus on section 5.5 (Chimera) use case and propose some new
wording that (hopefully) will make our various world views more
explicit.  If we manage to clearly capture the different world views
that we bring, so that they can be compared, I think that will be a
major step forward.


On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 10:16 -0400, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> 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
> defines.
> 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.
> Jonathan

David Booth, Ph.D.

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2011 13:44:33 UTC

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