- From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 10:31:33 +0100
- To: John Black <JohnBlack@kashori.com>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
Hi John John Black a écrit : > Are the following URI allowable according to web and semantic > web standards? As long as you have not given any formal description of their referent, all one can say is that they are well-formed :-) > Are they ambiguous? So far, no, since no meaning has been defined. :-D > Are they useful? OK, seriously now. If you have forged them, I suppose you have some use case(s) in mind. Could you give hints about such use cases? > In each case, > the referent would depend on the context of the use[1] of the URI. > <http://kashori.com/ontology/indexicals.owl#I> <http://kashori.com/ontology/indexicals.owl#now>I've been thinking about this question of URI referents for a while. In a semiotic approach of URIs and RDF descriptions, I've come up so far with the following: The URI is the signifier. The RDF description (of the resource identified by this URI) is the signified. The thing identified by the URI, and/or described by a RDF description, is the referent. Do you propose to have a context-dependent referent for the same signifier/signified? That's I guess you have in mind when looking for a formal ontology including those URI. I imagine for example having http://kashori.com/ontology/indexicals.owl#I rdf:type foaf:Agent Followed by some formal description of "I" being a speaker in the utterance context, such description being context-independent. From a linguistic/semiotic viewpoint, that makes sense. From a SW viewpoint, I' not sure, because nowhere in SW specifications, AFAIK, is clearly defined the semiotic triangle I propose above, and if it were, I'm not sure what the Semantic Web architecture would recommend about signifiers and referents. So far what I see as "allowable" is Having different signifiers for the same signified, using owl:sameAs, owl:equivalentClass ... Having different signified for the same signifier : ambiguity and inconsistency are expected in an open world ... But there is quite a silence about the referent, although my hunch is that there is some implicit assumption that the same signifier/signified (URI + RDF description) has a context-independent referent. In this case, your URIs would not be allowable. But I'm curious about other opinions on this. Cheers Bernard -- *Bernard Vatant *Knowledge Engineering ---------------------------------------------------- *Mondeca** *3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France Web: www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com> ---------------------------------------------------- Tel: +33 (0) 871 488 459 Mail: bernard.vatant@mondeca.com <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> Blog: Leçons de Choses <http://mondeca.wordpress.com/>
Received on Monday, 18 December 2006 09:31:45 UTC