W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2007

Re: Terminology Question concerning Web Architecture and Linked ?Data

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:52:44 -0400
Message-Id: <3A2D77C9-1E09-406D-9408-8710543EE5D6@gmail.com>
Cc: Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>, www-tag@w3.org, SW-forum Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Linking Open Data <linking-open-data@simile.mit.edu>, Jonathan A Rees <jar@mumble.net>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>

On Jul 10, 2007, at 1:08 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 14:43 +0200, Chris Bizer wrote:
>> Question 3: Depending on the answer to question 1, is it correct  
>> to use
>> owl:sameAs [6] to state that http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/ 
>> card#i and
>> http://dbpedia.org/resource/Tim_Berners-Lee refer to the same  
>> thing as it is
>> done in Tim's profile.
> Yes...
> That's sort of a circular question. It's correct because Tim says  
> it's correct, and he owns that name.

That's not the usual sense of "correct". In this context, I believe  
that the wordnet sense of "correct" that is intended is
"free from error; especially conforming to fact or truth"

Or Wikipedia: "In everyday use, the correctness of a statement is  
determined by whether or not it matches reality. People can think a  
statement is correct and be wrong."

If I had a profile that said, in effect, that I was president of the  
United States, then that would be incorrect regardless of whether I  
owned the name (I am taking the "owned name" that you are referring  
to to be http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i since that's the  
only name in the vicinity that Tim could correctly claim to be owned  
by him).

If I'm using the wrong sense of "correct", perhaps you could provide  
me a definition of "correct" by which I could understand your claim.


Received on Friday, 20 July 2007 02:52:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:01 UTC