- From: Richard Light <richard@light.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 10:06:51 +0100
- To: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Cc: Stella Dextre Clarke <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk>, "'Miles, AJ (Alistair) '" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
In message <GOEIKOOAMJONEFCANOKCOEDMEMAA.bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> writes Interestingly, a recent XML.Com article brought to my attention the idea of Reference By Description, another approach to subject identity which rather corresponds to Bernard's "second way": http://tap.stanford.edu/tap/rbd.html Richard Light > >Stella > >I appreciate very much your bottom line > >> ... the network of relationships may be a more reliable indicator >>than the URI. > >Food for thought in this domain can be found in old debates in Topic >Maps community around >the notion of "subject identity" [1]. Which properties should be used >to infer that two >"subjects" (read : "concepts") are identical? A fundamental Semantic >Web axiom is that >subject identity can/should be captured through a single property (a >URI). But more than >whatever is declared by a URI (in its very structure, and/or whatever >"Resource" it >"Identifies"), it's indeed the way(s) the URI is used, otherwise said >its network of >relationships (for example in a concept scheme, but not only ...) which >carry better its >identity. > >[1] See e.g. >http://www.isotopicmaps.org/pipermail/sc34wg3/2003-November/001909.html -- Richard Light SGML/XML and Museum Information Consultancy richard@light.demon.co.uk
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2004 09:07:35 UTC