- From: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:36:07 -0400
- To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
/me is supposed to be on vacation but can't seem to stay away from mailing lists threads :) Xiaoshu Wang wrote: > The URN Bijian/Chimezie/and others are talking about, at least from the given use cases, is intended for a URI that has no associated transportation protocol whatsoever. Perhaps, we should give it a name, something like, URNN (any good suggestion) so to narrow the scope of discussion. A distinct name would be nice when you consider that my first reaction was to go with the AWWW/httprange-14-friendly term 'non-information source'. However, the combination of the fact the httprange-14 finding is being rewritten [1] (yes!) and Roy Fielding's response [2] to that draft caused me to pause. Semiotics has been around and kicking *much* before our beloved web revolution and has appropriate names for such things. A brief perusal of John Sowas "Ontology, Metadata, and Semiotics" [3] turns up this reference: "A sign, or representamen, is something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity. It addresses somebody, that is, creates in the mind of that person an equivalent sign, or perhaps a more developed sign. That sign which it creates I call the interpretant of the first sign. The sign stands for something, its object. It stands for that object, not in all respects, but in reference to a sort of idea, which I have sometimes called the ground of the representamen. (CP 2.228)" All retorts about realism-based ontological modeling aside, I think I much prefer 'sign' to 'identifier' or 'non-information source'. -- Chimezie [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Aug/0039.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Aug/0044.html [3] http://users.bestweb.net/~sowa/peirce/ontometa.htm
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 21:36:12 UTC