- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 19:22:28 -0400
- To: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Andrea Splendiani <andrea.splendiani@deri.org>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>, Umutcan ŞİMŞEK <s.umutcan@gmail.com>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFKQJ8nxtGFUtfMBeODs3tYsAn1Mp8JF6v8YYUh1UR7CuS3NKA@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu> wrote: > See material (non-role) qua individuals for how contexts work. Roles are a > kind of context. So are time bounds. How about telling us in practical ways what these mean, rather than referring to (a large and not consistent) philosophical literature, or using vague assertions. -Alan > > Jim-qua-hcls-member > > > On Sunday, March 17, 2013, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > >> Can someone *please* tell me what a context is?? >> >> My null hypothesis is that when someone says "context" they either don't >> know what they are talking about, or are too lazy to say. Both these cases >> are deadly for clear communication on the web. >> >> -Alan >> >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu> wrote: >> >> If you want to use a common context, use the same URI, but if you don't, >> then don't. I have a paper in submission to ICBO about aggregating facts >> from specializations, I won't go into details but I can send it along if >> anyone's interested. >> >> Jim >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Andrea Splendiani < >> andrea.splendiani@deri.org> wrote: >> >> HI, >> >> From what you say, it looks more as if the apple is the same, but >> perspective on the apple are different. So same URI and different graphs >> seem a more clean approach. >> Using different URIs works as well in practice. But I'm a bit confused on >> how you make the generalization step. Who is saying that my apple and your >> apple are all narrower than a generic apple ? (we need this step if we >> don't want an autistic web). Again, it probably depends on a context, which >> leads to having graphs expressing contexts anyway. >> Or how do you reconcile different URIs from different understanding of >> the same thing ? >> >> Also, it looks to me that it's easy to have a URI explosion, if we choose >> different URIs to identify different perspectives on the same thing. >> Say we have a URI for a person, and to talk about this person when young >> and when old we use two different URIs. But than, when do we stop ? What if >> we have a URI per year ? Per day ? ... >> >> best, >> Andrea >> >> Il giorno 17/mar/2013, alle ore 04:34, Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu> >> ha scritto: >> >> Hmm. In the end, all three of them are talking about the same apple. >> Either a) the apple changed (they do that), or b) someone got it wrong (Is >> a McIntosh a red apple or green apple? It's kind of both). >> >> This of course goes to my general assertion that most of the time, >> disjointness assertions are more likely to be wrong than right, but this >> isn't about that. There is an apple, and all three people agree they are >> talking about the same apple. It may have changed, or someone was color >> blind, or looking at a colorized black and white photo when they decided >> what color it was. This is, more than anything, why, unless you know that >> the referent is that same AND the contextual scope is the same, it's better >> to mint your own URI and link out using altOf and specOf, rather than >> making assertions using someone else's resource. >> >> Jim >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:20 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Jim, >> >> >> On 03/16/2013 12:37 PM, Jim McCusker wrote: >> >> I'm not terribly interested in a Humpty Dumpty interpretation of the web >> of data. >> >> >> Well, you'd better get used to it, because that interpretation is >> standard RDF Semantics. I don't think it's going away any time soon. >> >> >> That's part of the motivation for having global identifiers >> like URIs/URLs. >> >> >> Exactly! That's why the idea that "a URI identifies one resource" is "a >> good goal, and helpful as a guide to URI users", even though it is not >> actually true. >> >> >> There's no point in merging ANY graphs under this view, >> since you have no way of knowing if the referents are the same. >> >> >> Not true! Don't throw the baby out with the bath. When you merge >> graphs, you force the referents to be the same. Sometimes the merge works >> fine, and sometimes the merge becomes inconsistent. Just >> >> > > -- > Jim McCusker > Programmer Analyst > Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics > Yale School of Medicine > james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-4436 > http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu > > PhD Student > Tetherless World Constellation > Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute > mccusj@cs.rpi.edu > http://tw.rpi.edu >
Received on Sunday, 17 March 2013 23:23:27 UTC