- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:34:08 +0000
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- CC: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>, public-lod@w3.org
Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 11/11/10 10:00 AM, Nathan wrote: >> Kingsley Idehen 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)? >> >> http://kingsley.idehen.name/dataspace/person/kidehen#this does not >> name you, it's not a name for you, or the name for you. >> >> It's a name (identifier for the purpose of referencing) of "#this, as >> described by http://kingsley.idehen.name/dataspace/person/kidehen" and >> how "#this, as described by >> http://kingsley.idehen.name/dataspace/person/kidehen" is ultimately >> interpreted to be, depends entirely on context and application. >> >> > If so, what is the URI identifying? >> >> It's identifying, or referring to, "x, as described by y" and what the >> description identifies is open to interpretation and context (a human? >> an agent? a father? a trusted-man? a holder of X? a bearer of Y?). > Nathan, > > In your response, I don't sense (in any way) the plurality that I sense > in David's comments -- for which I sought clarification. > > I interpret David's response (maybe inaccurately) as saying: > http://kingsley.idehen.name/dataspace/person/kidehen#this, isA URI that > can have > 1 Referent. None of your expressions infer that. AFAICT, it's more Man != Father != TrustedMan, so dependent on how you interpret the resource you will come to different conclusions as to what it identifies (x the Man or x the Father or x the TrustedMan, and so on), those things are all differentFrom each other, so thus it names different things in different contexts - but of course it's just one thing which can be classified in different ways. Or, perhaps he was more referring to that fact that </Toucan> does identify two entirely different things, not one thing that can be classified in two different ways. I'd suggest "URI == 1 described thing, description open to interpretation" as opposed to "URI == X things" - but reality we are faced with is that we need to handle both. Might be missing something.. Nathan
Received on Thursday, 11 November 2010 16:35:20 UTC