Re: blog: semantic dissonance in uniprot

On 24 Mar 2009, at 14:23, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
[snip]
> Bijan,
>
> I am not assuming naivety on your part.

Didn't  suggest you were.

Just was pointing out that my not understanding your questions or  
arguments was not a function of being naive about identity.

> I just want to focus on the essence of my comments to Michel and  
> Peter who have issues with the use of 303 redirection to achieve  
> separation of datum identity from descriptive representation, when  
> using a particular URI scheme.

Dude, you put these words together, but my eyes hide them from me.

"Datum identity"? What the heck IS that? And do I really need to  
care? Why do you want to achieve separation of it from descriptive  
representation? What about non-descriptive representation?

> I am simply interested in explaining to them what this is trying to  
> achieve since it remains a strange point of contention.  I use the  
> word "strange" because I believe that the mechanics of the process   
> are obscuring the fundamental concept in play: Object Identity.

Ok, but object identity and entity identity (e.g., the identity of  
the denotation of two expressions) are fairly different things. E.g.,  
objects, in the sense of object identity in OODBMS, are features of,  
er, objects in the programming language sense. OMG! We're back to  
confusing Records and Things, only, in the surprise twist, YOU'RE the  
one mixing them up?

My world shakes...

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2009 18:56:48 UTC