- From: Alexander Johannesen <alexander.johannesen@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 12:58:56 +1100
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Cc: hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl, Frederik Byl <frederik.byl@gmail.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Melvin wrote: > Nobody denies that URIs as predicates can be useful. Why is there an insistence > on EVERY predicate being a URI? What is the logic behind it? Whose decision was it? I'm a bit confused at this one. So ... if you're not using a predicate to identify what the token is, what ... is it? What is a series of characters in a string without any context (at least for identification purposes)? Are you saying that the concept of open world strings and words (in English) is your ontological base platform? That sounds like an epistemological nightmare? There's some deep core challenges in the divide between open world (every serialized word is a token, and identity is either futile or loose) and closed world (any serialized token must be linked to some ontological identity), and especially the mixed model we usually use every day. We're talking about standards that can apply to a variety of use cases, but especially interoperability between formats and systems, so we need to have ... something that ties them together. Predicates (apart from the ongoing nightmare that is anonymous nodes) is one way to do it. How do you do it? Cheers, Alex -- Information Alchemist, tone modulator, swords master thinkplot.org | linkedin.com/in/shelterit | sheltered-objections.blogspot.com
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2022 01:59:20 UTC