- From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 08:08:29 -0700
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>, nathan@webr3.org, public-lod@w3.org
I agree with Kingsley, an "identifier" that "identifies" more than one thing is a common name, not an identifier. To say that a URI can identify multiple things is as meaningless as saying that the string "Rob" identifies me. That is all. Carry on. Rob Sanderson On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: > On 11/11/10 9:00 AM, 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 >> It is a good *goal*, but it is inherently unachievable. > > Are you implying that a URI -- an Identifier -- doesn't have a Referent > (singular)? If so, what is the URI identifying? > > In my world view: > Identification != Representation. The fact that I can de-reference an > Identifier en route to obtaining Data doesn't make the Identifier a > Representation of the Data. It's a conduit to the Data. > > [SNIP] > > -- > > 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 Thursday, 11 November 2010 15:09:03 UTC