- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 11:13:04 -0400
- To: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
Le mercredi, 24 sep 2003, à 10:23 America/Montreal, Peter F. Patel-Schneider a écrit : >> no. no, no - this is very different -- in English the string "person" >> may have many definitions. On the web the string >> "http://www.../foo#person" may be said to refer to many concepts, but >> the label is unambiguous > > I don't view it this way at all. My view is that the English word > ``person'' unambiguously labels the word ``person'', just as > "http://www.../foo#person" unambiguously labels > "http://www.../foo#person". Do you mean that the URI is ***as ambiguous as the english word*** in terms of meaning? Should I interpret your sentence """ My view is that the ***ambiguous*** English word ``person'' unambiguously labels the word ``person'' """ still from Wordnet http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn1.7.1?stage=1&word=person 1. person, individual, someone, somebody, mortal, human, soul -- (a human being; "there was too much for one person to do") 2. person -- (a person's body (usually including their clothing); "a weapon was hidden on his person") 3. person -- (a grammatical category of pronouns and verb forms; "stop talking about yourself in the third person") At least, we can identify two meanings here: the biological thing and the grammatical rule. But you can also and sticking to english, imagine that: Some people thing that some other people are not persons (example in the history with slavery, or women history) > - think of it as if in English I was to write >> "No(1), No(1), No(1), this(17) is(42) very(6) different(7)" >> where each of the subscripts refers to a specific definition on a >> specific page of a specific dictionary. > > And how is this different from > > http://...#peter (http://xmlns.org/foaf) rdf:type > (http://...rdf...) > http://www.../foo#person (http://www.../foo). Not only in this case the word but the word + its definition. And we know that definitions change in time too. one of the definition of Earth is 1. Earth, world, globe -- (the 3rd planet from the sun; the planet on which we live; "the Earth moves around the sun"; "he sailed around the world") A few centuries ago it was not a globe, but a flat thing and it was not the 3rd planet, it was the centre of Universe. > The situations are even closer than this. Pointers to dictionary > entries > don't provide all the meaning of a word, nor do (single) Semantic Web > documents provide all the meaning of a URI reference. Agreed. >> yes, but it would require a new URI if we then wanted to name one of >> these new concepts. > > Why? Why would (should) a new URI be required? Why can't (shouldn't) > I > ``say anything about anything''? Because of social implications and interactions ? Will you agree if the meaning of the law (the references in the code) were fluctuating all the time? -- Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ W3C Conformance Manager *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2003 11:13:05 UTC