W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle [was Re: Schema.org in RDF ...]

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:42:33 +0100
Message-ID: <4DFBBC39.9000602@webr3.org>
To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Jason Borro <jason@openguid.net>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Danny Ayers wrote:
> On 16 June 2011 02:26, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
> 
>> If you agree with Danny that a description can be a substitute for the thing it describes, then I am waiting to hear how one of you will re-write classical model theory to accommodate this classical use/mention error. You might want to start by reading Korzybski's 'General Semantics'.
> 
> IANAL, but I have heard of the use/mention thing, quite often. I don't
> honestly know whether classical model theory needs a rewrite, but I'm
> sure it doesn't on the basis of this thread. I also don't know enough
> to know whether it's applicable - from your reaction, I suspect not.
> 
> As a publisher of information on the Web, I'm pretty much free to say
> what I like (cf. Tim's Design Notes). Fish are bicycles. But that
> isn't very useful.
> 
> But if I say Sasha is some kind of weird Collie-German Shepherd cross,
> that has direct relevance to Sasha herself. More, the arcs in my
> description between Sasha and her parents have direct correspondence
> with the arcs between Sasha and her parents. There is information
> common to the reality and the description (at least in human terms).
> The description may, when you stand back, be very different in its
> nature to the reality, but if you wish to make use of the information,
> such common aspects are valuable. We've already established that HTTP
> doesn't deal with any kind of "one true" representation. Data about
> Sasha's parentage isn't Sasha, but it's closer than a non-committal
> 303 or rdfs:seeAlso. There's nothing around HTTP that says it can't be
> given the same name, and it's a darn sight more useful than a
> wave-over-there redirect or a random fish/bike association. I can't
> see anything it breaks either.

You could use the same name for both if each name was always coupled to 
a universe, specified by the predicate, and you cut out type information 
from data, such that:

  <x-sasha> :animalname "sasha" ; :created "2011...." .

was read as:

  Animal(<x-sasha>) :animalname "sasha" .
  Document(<x-sasha>) :created "2011...." .

the ability to do this could be pushed on to ontologies, with domain and 
range and restrictions specifying universes and boundaries - but it's a 
big change.

really, different names for different things is quite simple to stick 
to, and considering most (virtually all) documents on the web have 
several different elements and identifiable things, the one page one 
subject thing isn't worth spending too much time focusing on as a 
generic use case, as any solution based on it won't apply to the web at 
large which is very diverse and packed full of lots of potentially 
identifiable things.

best, nathan
Received on Friday, 17 June 2011 20:43:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:29:54 UTC