- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:23:30 +0000
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- CC: Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>, public-lod@w3.org
David Booth wrote: > On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 07:23 +0100, Jiří Procházka wrote: > [ . . . ] >> I think it is flawed trying to enforce "URI == 1 thing" > > Exactly right. The "URI == 1 thing" notion is myth #1 in "Resource > Identity and Semantic Extensions: Making Sense of Ambiguity": > http://dbooth.org/2010/ambiguity/paper.html#myth1 good paper > It is a good *goal*, but it is inherently unachievable. Yes, "you're interpretation of X, as described by Y" where Y is the graph you're currently considering in whatever context. > The important thing to keep in mind is that ambiguity is *relative* -- > it depends on the application. An application that does not need to > differentiate the toucan from its web page will still produce correct > answers even if it uses a URI the ambiguously denotes both. However, > another application that needs to associate a different :hasOwner > property value with the toucan than the web page will need to use a > different URI for each. Exactly, so as a prudent publisher of data it is wise not to attempt to constrain consideration of your data in only one specific application where the ambiguity doesn't matter. Similarly it may not be wise to try and prevent free speech by essentially saying "this is a toucan, even if everybody else says it's not, ignore them and what they say", others will speak and some applications will have to reject your should-be-valid statements about the toucan, since they conflict with their world view, where such distinctions are required. Best, Nathan
Received on Thursday, 11 November 2010 14:24:36 UTC