- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:57:53 +0000
- To: Simon Spero <ses@unc.edu>
- Cc: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, "Sandhaus, Evan" <sandhes@nytimes.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
On 13 Nov 2009, at 18:38, Simon Spero wrote: > unless an assertion could only > refer to one entity and not the other, or must apply to all possible > entities that the URI could denote, it is not possible to perform this > disambiguation. URIs are cheap; why not have two? URIs are cheap, but agreement on URIs is expensive. I think there are clear advantages to being able to use the same URI in different contexts (e.g., SKOS and FOAF; or SKOS and RDFS class). I like the criteria that you set up above for assertions about the “overloaded” resource: Either the assertion can only refer to one entity and not the other; or the assertion applies to all entities possibly denoted by the URI. Richard > > Simon > p.s. > > Since it's Gavagi Friday, here's a story about detached rabbit > parts<http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/09/science-monday-vat-grown- > rabbi>. > In a vat. Capable of giving mild sexual gratification to a > warehouse full > of rabbits. Lo, a trifecta!
Received on Friday, 13 November 2009 18:58:33 UTC