- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 20:38:18 -0400
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "public-rdf-comments@w3.org Comments" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On 09/09/2013 02:51 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: > The question though is, whether > I(<http://my.graph.name.example.org/>) = the graph you want it to > mean. The problem is that there are people who want to use an IRI to > simultaneously denote a person (say) but also be the name of a graph > (eg of information about that person). And they have deployed systems > and much money vested in being able to do this. Uh . . . this may be opening up a can of worms, but what you're saying sounds a lot like the IRI resource identity ambiguity issue that has been discussed quite a lot in the past. In short, there is no conflict if either: (a) the class of persons has not been asserted to be disjoint with the class of graphs; or (b) the IRI denotes a person in one RDF interpretation (e.g. in one system) but denotes a graph in a different RDF interpretation (e.g. in a different system). I don't know if this observation would help resolve the problem that you're mentioning though. David
Received on Thursday, 12 September 2013 00:38:46 UTC