- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:45:33 -0400
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjekje@ifi.uio.no>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, SW-forum Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 20:51 +0000, Nathan wrote: > Here's another quick rewrite: > > David Booth wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 18:55 +0000, Nathan wrote: > >>> Can something be both a birth certificate and a red lightbulb? (my intuition says no). > > > > In a given graph g, a URI u can perfectly well (ambiguously) identify > > something that is both a birth certificate and a red > > lightbulb, provided that g has no disjointness or other such predicates > > that would prevent it from being so. > > > > You need to know what graph you are asking about, and what assertions it > > contains, to answer the question. > > So perhaps the question being answered is, can we feasibly carry out a > conversation where we refer to both a birth certificate and a red > lightbulb by a single ambiguous name? using RDF? Yes, if the distinction between birth certificates and red lightbulbs is irrelevant to our task. > Possibly, but why even try? Because: 1. Not all applications *need* to distinguish between a lightbulb and a birth certificate. For example, an application that cares only about who owns what may work perfectly fine treating <http://example/#item437> as an ambiguous combination of a birth certificate and a red lightbulb. 2. Because this kind of ambiguity of reference is *inescapable* (though the example is an extreme case), so we have no choice but to learn to deal with it. Ambiguity/unambiguity is *relative* to a particular application. It is not an absolute notion. A resource definition that is unambiguous to one application may be ambiguous to another application that requires finer distinctions. In all but vanishingly few cases, it is *impossible* to define a resource in a universally unambiguous way, because there are *always* finer distinctions that can be made. -- David Booth, Ph.D. http://dbooth.org/ Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of his employer.
Received on Friday, 18 March 2011 21:46:02 UTC