- From: joel sachs <jsachs@csee.umbc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 18:01:47 -0500 (EST)
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- cc: nathan@webr3.org, Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>, Pete Johnston <Pete.Johnston@eduserv.org.uk>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
I guess what surprises me is your use of "can't" in "We can't produce ..." instead of "shouldn't", as in "We shouldn't produce high fidelity descriptions of things that aren't unambiguosly identified, because if we do, there will be no reliable way to merge descriptions from different sources." I think it's obvious that we "can" since we do it all the time. That we shouldn't may be true, although it is, I think you'll agree, a contested claim. Joel. On Tue, 9 Nov 2010, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 11/9/10 5:04 PM, joel sachs 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. > > Joel, > > Let me be a little clearer re. my statement: > > We can't produce high-fidelity descriptions of "Things" (Entities) if the > description Subjects aren't unambiguously Identified. > > I believe, via Linked Data, we are seeking to produce high-fidelity Linked > Data meshes that scale. > > English is but one of several syntaxes. > > Global scale is an integral goal of the mission, Methinks. > > -- > > Regards, > > Kingsley Idehen President& CEO > OpenLink Software > Web: http://www.openlinksw.com > Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen > Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2010 23:02:26 UTC