Re: Getting to closure on the remaining issues

On 01/24/2014 11:54 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>
> On 24 Jan 2014, at 17:38, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> On 01/24/2014 10:29 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24 Jan 2014, at 16:27, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01/24/2014 10:07 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 24 Jan 2014, at 15:55, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/24/2014 09:15 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/24/14 3:11 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Somewhere inhttp://www.w3.org/ns/ldp.html, at the fragment-id
>>>>>>>>>> #Container, I expect to find something saying that ldp:Container when
>>>>>>>>>> used with rel=profile denotes the Container interaction model as
>>>>>>>>>> defined inhttp://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#the-right-id.
>>>>>>>> You can not do things like that in RDF. You can not have a URI
>>>>>>>> denote one thing if it is related to by one relation, and another thing
>>>>>>>> if it is related to by another relation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alexandre,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wouldn't you be better served by providing an example of what you mean?
>>>>>>> Like Henry, I don't understand what you mean i.e., how you would express
>>>>>>> what you claim using RDF.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Container> a rdf:Class ;
>>>>>>   dc:description "when use with with rel=profile, denotes the Container interaction model as defined inhttp://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#the-right-id" .
>>>>>
>>>>> This suggests that with another relation ldp:Container denotes something else. Yet a URI always only
>>>>> denotes one thing. That is core to the notion of a URI, and clearly written out in the ldp semantics.
>>>>
>>>> I still don't understand. Can you say where it's "clearly written out"?
>>>>
>>>> In plain English: ldp:Container happens to be a class that can be used
>>>> to denote the Container interaction model when used with
>>>> rel=profile. What's wrong in that sentence?
>>>
>>> What does it denote when it is not used with rel=profile?
>>
>> Then the behavior is not defined. It's ok because we're only
>> interested in defining what it means when we use it with rel=profile,
>> or when you use it as a class.
>
> A URI refers to one thing. This is not a question of behaviour. That
> is how URIs are defined.
>
> [[
>     A Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) provides a simple and extensible
>     means for identifying a resource.
> ]]

I gave you the one declarative and universal meaning for
ldp:Container: it denotes the LDPC interaction model when used with
rel=profile, you're on your own for other rels.

Does this introduce any contradiction with anything else?

>
> It follows therfore from that that ldp:Container URI would denote the
> "Container interaction model" whatever the relation that relates to
> it.
>
>>
>> Almost all programming languages I know have something similar: a
>> class is itself an object that you can pass around at runtime to use
>> it. And sometimes, your program doesn't know what to do because it's
>> not defined. Classes are first-class citizens (no pun intended) in RDF
>> so you can do the same.
>
>
> You are trying to import procedural programming language
> presuppositions into declarative logic. But that does not work.
> That's the type of thinking that leads to XMLRPC, SOAP, etc...

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Alexandre.

>
>
>>
>> Alexandre.
>>
>>>
>>> Henry
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Alexandre.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Henry
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alexandre.
>>>>>
>>>>> Social Web Architect
>>>>> http://bblfish.net/
>>>
>>> Social Web Architect
>>> http://bblfish.net/
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
>

Received on Friday, 24 January 2014 17:14:18 UTC