- From: Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 14:12:58 +0300
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Ian Millard <icm@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
On 4 Jun 2009, at 12:18, Toby Inkster wrote: > On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 00:54 +0100, Richard Cyganiak wrote: >> The general RDF graph has the shape >> A: <U1> owl:sameAs <U1>, <U2>, <U3>, <U4> . > > Oh yes, another thing: saying the above, with OWL reasoning in place > is > equivalent to saying: > > B: <U1> owl:sameAs <U1>, <U1>, <U1>, <U1> . Naming the two above statements A and B it is true that when A is true so is B. But clearly there is a difference in sense, as Frege was forced to admit over 100 years ago, if I remember my logic correctly. This is the case since the information content of B is close to 0, whereas A could come as a surprise, and certainly can teach one something new. It can produce a cognitive change in the believer. The way to think of it is that when you write one of the above sentences you are writing these statements down using precise URIs, thought of as Strings here. The sentences themselves cannot be understood without those syntactic tokens. Each of these URIs refers to an object in reality, but each one does so in a different way. In the case of http URIs this is quite evident: dereferencing each one gets one to a different representation, which can be thought of as defining or contributing to the sense of the URI in what could be called a canonical way. So in short there is no need to use URI strings to make statements about owl sameas Henry Social Web Architect Sun Microsystems Blog: http://blogs.sun.com/bblfish
Received on Thursday, 4 June 2009 11:13:56 UTC