- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:53:27 +0100
- To: "Mark Birbeck" <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
- Cc: tim.glover@bt.com, semantic-web@w3.org
On 2 Jul 2008, at 12:19, Mark Birbeck wrote: > Hi Tim, > > I'm not sure that this is where the differences lie. > > In my view the key point is that with RDF we have unique identifiers > for concepts--whether that is the things we're talking about, or the > vocabulary we're using to talk about them. [snip] I stop reading here. Here's why. At best we have unambiguous (not unique) identifiers and we don't have those either. This isn't even a coordination issue. In a single ontology it's highly nontrivial to establish formal uniqueness (i.e., two names aren't equivalent/equal; requires lots of reasoning) and even harder to establish intended uniqueness (I might coin a term twice because I didn't recognize them to be the same). Thus, whatever argument follows cannot depend on this point (and be sound). Therefore it cannot be the key point. It's also hard to see that XML is any worse off with regard to identifiers. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2008 11:51:15 UTC