Re: blog: semantic dissonance in uniprot

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> 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.
>
>
Bijan,

I am not mixing anything up.
A this juncture I have nothing to add to the discussion.

-- 


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com

Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2009 19:36:10 UTC