W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > November 2010

Re: What would break, a question for implementors? (was Re: Is 303 really necessary?)

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 22:36:49 +0000
Message-ID: <4CD9CD01.9040904@webr3.org>
To: joel sachs <jsachs@csee.umbc.edu>
CC: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>, Pete Johnston <Pete.Johnston@eduserv.org.uk>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
joel sachs wrote:
>> On 11/9/10 11:10 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> A URI is just an Identifier. We can't  "Describe" what isn't 
>> unambiguously Identified (Named);
> 
> Kingsley,
> 
> I think we can, though we might not be properly understood, e.g. 
> "Kingsley was great in Gandhi and Sexy Beast."
> 
> Wasn't this part of the summer's argument regarding literals as 
> rdf:subjects , i.e.
> 
> Those opposed: But you might be misunderstood.
> Those in favour: We'll take our chances.
> ?

Perhaps you are both correct,

I believe what Kingsley is getting at, is that in order to refer to the 
description of something (thus something described), you need to have an 
unambiguous name (identifier for the purpose of referencing) to use as 
the subject in statements made about that thing, within the description 
( read as, a way of referring to "a description of bar" within "a 
description named foo" = "bar, as described by foo" = foo#bar ) - Not 
that foo#bar must be an unambiguous name for a thing in the IFP sense - 
rather an unambiguous way to say, on the web, "the thing I am describing 
is the same thing bar, as described by foo".

And perhaps what you are saying, is the same thing "Kingsley, as 
described by Ghandi and Sexy Beast, was great" = 
"ghandi-sexy-beast#kingsley"

And, perhaps:

Those opposed: We'll take our chances.
Those in favour: But you might be misunderstood.

Best,

Nathan
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2010 22:37:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:21:06 UTC