Re: Blog post about "Provenance in RDF-star"

> Am 07.02.2022 um 20:32 schrieb Patrick J. Hayes <phayes@ihmc.org>:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 4, 2022, at 2:22 AM, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr> wrote:
>> 
>> ... most people, I believe, would accept that a name can be a character string (and vice versa). ... We identify names and character strings all the time, and it is fine. If you are working in the field of lexicography and philology, you may want to identify words, word representations, word senses, etc. with individual URIs, but I'd say it is beside the point.
> 
> But we can say the same about many topics, perhaps all of them. 
> 
> Most people would accept that one atom of an element is just like another. We do that all the time, and it is fine. If you are working in the field of nuclear chemistry you may want to identify different isotopes, such a C-14 and C-12, with individual URIs, but I'd say it is beside the point.
> 
> Most people would accept that a city is just a place. We do that all the time, and it is fine. If you are working in the field of civic administration you may want to identify different administrative entities, such as the City of London and Greater London, with individual URIs, but I'd say it is beside the point.
> 
> And so on. 
> 
> "I'd say it is beside the point" simply means "I am not interested in that particular distinction and am happy to ignore it", but of course others may differ. Whenever you take that position you implictly exclude some users, by making it impossible for them to speak of what interests them. 
> 
> Pat 


First hit when googling for "pat hayes besides the point":
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0046.html

I disagree anyways: saying that something is besides the point doesn’t exclude a user from a discussion but a topic. It is a perfectly acceptable way to get to a point that is of common interest.

Thomas

Received on Monday, 7 February 2022 20:03:31 UTC