Re: Dublin Core, the Primer and the Model Theory

On 2002-05-16 9:49, "ext Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 2002-05-16 at 04:32, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> [...]
>> The current model theory also mandates the following
>> entailment:
>> 
>> Premise:
>>  <eg:doc1> <dc:creator> "John Smith" .
>>  <eg:doc2> <dc:creator> "John Smith" .
>> Conclusion:
>>  <eg:doc1> <dc:creator> _:blank .
>>  <eg:doc2> <dc:creator> _:blank .
>> 
>> All Dublin Core users would recognise that it is not
>> always true that the premise entail that the two documents
>> have the same author i.e. they would recognise that there
>> might be two Johns.
> 
> The way I see it, dc:creator relates a work to
> either its creator or a name for its creator.
> So the conclusion just says that the two works
> have either the same creator or have creators with
> the same name.

Well, one way to view this is to draw a line between
URIs as names and literals as names based on global
consistency. URIs are names of things and they have
a consistent global meaning in-and-of themselves.
Literals are also names of things, but they need
additional context to disambiguate exactly which thing
they name.

But in both cases, they can name something in the
universe.

Eh?

So I think that the current Dublin Core (and CC/PP
and other) usage is quite correct, and not the least
bit misguided or wrong.

There are advantages to using a URI (or blank node)
insofar as global consistency is concerned, but there
are also advantages to using context sensitive names
as well. And simpledatatypes2 provides idioms for both
cases -- but also provides a consistent interpretation
in the MT.

Cheers,

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com

Received on Thursday, 16 May 2002 10:15:49 UTC