- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:38:04 -0500
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- CC: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>, public-lod@w3.org
On 11/11/10 11:34 AM, Nathan wrote: > 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. Still no Referent plurality there re. Identifiers. > > 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.. I'll drop and rough draft poem under a separate heading :-) > > Nathan > -- 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 16:38:36 UTC