Re: Action: #rdfms-identity-anon-resources questions

>Graham Klyne wrote:
>
> > I think the assumption that the URI denotes a specific resource is somewhat
> > empty if one has no other knowledge about the resource thus denoted.  As
> > Pat pointed out, in this situation you can do no more than infer that such
> > a resource exists.
>
>If I use that resource twice, in one case I'd expect to use the same resource
>twice, in the other, I could not have that expectation.
>
> >
> > >   o provenance: when a source of rdf states some properties about
> > >     a resource named by a URI it is making assertions that the
> > >     resource named by that URI has those properties.  when a source
> > >     of rdf states properties about a variable, it is making no
> > >     assertions about the name of that resource.
> >
> > The detailed form of the argument here depends a bit on whether one assumes
> > that URIs:resources are 1:1, or if several URIs can identify the same
> > resource.  But either way I assert that two URIs can ultimately refer to
> > the same thing in the domain of interpretation.  Thus, assertions about a
> > resource named by a uniquely-generated URI MAY be referring to a resource
> > that is elsewhere known by a specified URI.  This seems to be the same as
> > information that one has about a resource identified by a variable.
>
>A sends signed rdf containing anon node to B.  It matters whether A or B
>generates the URI.  If B generates it, A has not signed that name->resource
>mapping.

Right. In general, people shouldnt ever transfer other people's 
signatures to names they invent, and certainly not without checking 
with the signer first (in which case they can sign the new name.) 
There ought to be a law about it. In fact, maybe there is a law about 
it.

Pat

---------------------------------------------------------------------
(650)859 6569 w
(650)494 3973 h (until September)
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes

Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2001 01:35:16 UTC