- From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 14:36:09 -0800
- To: Martyn Horner <martyn.horner@profium.com>
- CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Martyn Horner wrote: > > Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > > 3: Sergey's example > > > > _1 --dc:Title--> "The Origin of Species" > > _2 --my:book--> "The Origin of Species" > > > > Many modellers may use a predicate like my:book to show a relationship > > between a subject (a person) and an object they possess (generally a book > > they possess). Quite a contrived misinterpretation, I admit. my: is "my" namespace, nothing more, nothing less. We don't know what _1 and _2 represent. Both may be publications. Both may be abstract data structures. > > In which case the following is also plausible: > > > > _2 --my:book--> _3 --dc:Title--> "The Origin of Species" > > > > This seems to suggest that "The Origin of Species" is both a title of > > something and a book. I generally believe that titles are parts of book. Sure, it does ;) And I generally believe that books are parts of titles ;) > > > > Jeremy > > As Lewis Carroll would say: Haddock's Eyes. > > One might assume that _2 is a book consisting of the four words "The > Origin of Species"... or even (depending on the notation) a shorthand > for the location of such a short book. > > Tidiness would in this case be invidious. Jeremy's argument thins out to discussing what _1 and _2 are intended to be, could possibly be, or are desired to be. It's just unproductive. I see untidiness as far more invidious. Since literals are polymorphic, it is possible to create a "datatype" for persons and another one for names, so that literal "Martyn" may represent a person if it occurs in one context, or it may represent a person's name in another context. That's what I call invidious... Sergey
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 17:07:01 UTC