- From: karl <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:05:07 -0400
- To: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
Le Jeudi, 16 octo 2003, à 09:52 America/Montreal, Graham Klyne a écrit : > At 08:47 16/10/03 -0400, Thomas B. Passin wrote: >> I think that individual terms _do_ have meaning for people. For >> example, the word "gravity" certainly has meaning for me. It may >> well be that my sense of its meaning comes mainly from a large >> collection of statments that I have heard or uttered in the past - >> along with personal experience - but nevertheless the term itself >> carries meaning for me. > > So it may. But we can never be sure that the meaning it has for you > is the same as the meaning it has for, say, me. What we can agree on, > however, is some collection of statements using the term "gravity" > that we both agree to be true. To this extent, it seems that when we > seek shared meaning, it's easier to find it in statements than in > individual terms. so still my point about weakness about resolvable URIs for Terms. I think we all agree that a Term has Meaning because of Statement 1 Statement 2 ... Statement n If I understood, in OWL Term is an URI and Statement(1 to n) are URIs too. Do you think a system where Term = MUST NOT be resolvable URI Ex: http://www.example.org/something/nowhere/ Statement(1 to n) = MAY be resolvable URIs It has not necessary to be in the spec but it could be a good practice. Or it may be stupid. Don't hesitate to tell me. -- Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ W3C Conformance Manager *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Thursday, 16 October 2003 20:05:03 UTC