- From: Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 08:40:14 -0500
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Kingsley, On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 07:58 -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 11/12/10 5:59 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote: <snip> > > > > > > > > > > Patrick / Dave, > > I am hoping as the responses come in we might pick up something. There > is certainly some confusion out there. > > Note my comments yesterday re. URIs and Referents. I believe this > association to be 1:1, but others may not necessarily see it so. > Isn't it that "...others may not necessarily see it so." that lies at the heart of semantic ambiguity? Semantic ambiguity isn't going to go away. It is part and parcel of the very act of communication. It is true that is very limited circumstances with very few semantics, such as TCP/IP, that is it possible to establish reliable communications across multiple recipients. (Or it might be more correct to say semantics of concern to such a small community that agreement is possible. I will have to pull Stevens off the shelf to see.) As the amount of semantics increases (or the size of the community), so does the potential for and therefore the amount of semantic ambiguity. (I am sure someone has published that as some ratio but I don't recall the reference.) Witness the lack of uniform semantics in the linked data community over something as common as sameAs. As the linked data community expands, so are the number of interpretations of sameAs. Why can't we fashion solutions for how we are rather than wishing for solution for how we aren't? Hope you are looking forward to a great weekend! Patrick
Received on Friday, 12 November 2010 13:41:44 UTC