Re: How do you deprecate URIs? Re: OWL-DL and linked data

I'm just trying to keep the focus on context, which determines the meaning.

If the same term is applied in a different context, some time in the future,
that term is likely to have a new meaning.  The "old" users and "new" users
of the term will need to meet, discuss, agree on a new meaning of the old
term in the new context.

Dick

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Ansell" <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@pioneerca.com>
Cc: "semantic-web at W3C" <semantic-web@w3c.org>
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: How do you deprecate URIs? Re: OWL-DL and linked data


> 2008/7/8 Richard H. McCullough <rhm@pioneerca.com>:
>> Don't make the mistake of saying you don't know the context.
>> If you don't know the context, you quite literally don't know
>> what you're talking about.
>
> Lots of things can be defined without knowing the precise future
> context in which the term will be used. I think you may be out of
> touch with what people are trying to do with URI coreference in RDF if
> you think you need to know precisely what you are going to be using a
> term for when it is defined.
>
> Witty statements about "not knowing what they are talking about" may
> seem promising in the short term but they leave a big hole where an
> answer will need to be stated before the issue is resolved.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter
>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Ansell" 
>> <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
>> To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@pioneerca.com>
>> Cc: "semantic-web at W3C" <semantic-web@w3c.org>
>> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 4:29 PM
>> Subject: Re: How do you deprecate URIs? Re: OWL-DL and linked data
>>
>>
>>> 2008/7/8 Richard H. McCullough <rhm@pioneerca.com>:
>>>>
>>>> I haven't been following the "deprecate URIs" thread, so forgive me if
>>>> I'm
>>>> being repetitious.
>>>> 1. everything is contextual.  But that's no excuse for being sloppy 
>>>> with
>>>> meanings.
>>>
>>> The issue with published ontologies is that you don't know what the
>>> context is going to be when someone uses any given term. You can
>>> attempt to restrict it but that doesn't promote reuse.
>>>
>>>> 2. ambiguity is not inevitable -- it is avoided by clearly identifying
>>>> context.
>>>
>>> If you don't know the context a priori, and you aren't attempting to
>>> recreate the entire world in your monolithic ontology this isn't a
>>> useful suggestion.
>>>
>>>> 2. OWL:SameAs (like mKR:is) means identical -- two names (aliases) 
>>>> which
>>>> mean the same thing.  Let's not corrupt the meaning of this term.
>>>
>>> I think most of the discussion is about how you describe to someone
>>> how to decide if two names "mean the same thing". It doesn't seem at
>>> all obvious what they should be told past the equivalent data
>>> structures method, which isn't useful for the situation here
>>>
>>>> 3. there are other terms which can be used to express varying degrees 
>>>> of
>>>> similarity.
>>>
>>> What are they, and what software supports them? That is in effect the
>>> 64 thousand dollar question here!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>> Dick McCullough
>> http://mKRmKE.org/
>> Ayn Rand do speak od mKR done;
>> knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
>> knowledge haspart proposition list;
>> mKE do enhance od "Real Intelligence" done;
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Dick McCullough
http://mKRmKE.org/
Ayn Rand do speak od mKR done;
knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
knowledge haspart proposition list;
mKE do enhance od "Real Intelligence" done;

Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2008 01:59:16 UTC