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: joel sachs <jsachs@csee.umbc.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 18:11:21 -0500 (EST)
To: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
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>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1011091809160.13306@linuxserver1.cs.umbc.edu>
On Tue, 9 Nov 2010, Nathan wrote:

> 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


Nathan, I definitely agree with your switcharoo -

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

Specifically, as it stands now, there is great scope for misunderstanding
when dealing with Linked Data. Perhaps the most egregious example is the
widely discredited owl:sameAs. The hope, I think, of Linked Data, is that,
as time goes by, the scope for misunderstanding will be greatly

Regards -
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2010 23:12:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:29:51 UTC