- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:09:51 +0000
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- CC: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjekje@ifi.uio.no>, SW-forum Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
David Booth wrote: >> So, while we as (non-logical) observers may usefully (and incorrectly) >> believe that some term refers unamibiguously to some thing, the logic >> may not support this, but ultimately it doesn't matter because the >> answers that the logic may yield are still correct. > > Exactly . . . for *that* application. So an application that only needs > to prove the color of an object can prove that in every satisfying > interpretation, the color of <http://example/vxb24#a37f> is "black". > > On the other hand, a different application using the same URI in a > different RDF graph, and attempting to prove that the object is a TV or > a shoe may not be able to do so if all the information it has about the > object is: > > <http://example/vxb24#a37f> :color "black" . > > I.e., for the second application, that same URI is ambiguous. Which is ambiguous, the URI or that specific description? the application may well have followed it's nose there, or may have many other statements about that URI to consider already. Given that the variable thing here is the description / amount of information, I don't see how the URI (the name, the reference) can be ambiguous?
Received on Monday, 21 March 2011 16:10:43 UTC