- From: Kevin Smathers <ks@micky.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 07:54:09 -0700
- To: "David R. Karger" <karger@theory.lcs.mit.edu>
- Cc: matsakis@MIT.EDU, www-rdf-dspace@w3.org
Hi David, On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 06:17:09PM -0400, David R. Karger wrote: > The main problem that I have with this approach is that I don't consider > two files to be the same just because they happen to have the same > content. Likewise two facts. > > If by file you mean a specific arrangement of magnetic particles on a > specific disk drive, I agree with you. But I also think it valuable > to envision a unique, platonic ideal of a certain bit sequence (and it > is that I want to associate with an MD5). A lot of the assertions > that people make about a file are, I think, actually about those > platonic bits. "These bits were written by David" (and ditto for much > else of the dublin core), "These bits are 100 bytes long" and "these > bits are currently stored at http://foo". > Actually by file I mean an entry in a directory structure, on an operating system which maintains directory structures. > I feel the same way about statements (I'm not going to try to define > facts). An "a R b" statement is unique. If two people make the same > "a R b" statement then that is exactly what happened: they asserted > the SAME statement. Just because the content of the statement is identical doesn't mean that you can validly collapse all of the statements with that content to a single instance. The content will remain identical even if there are multiple instances, but the address distinction between the statements will be lost if the instances are collapsed. Neccessarily therefor, collapsed statements represent a loss of information. The only time that you can validly collapse statements without a loss of information is when the statements are both inaddressable and immutable. Your argument that the users intent all along should have been to assert the same instance as had been asserted previously is presuming to know the intent of the user. If the user had that intent, then there is no reason for them not to use the preexisting statement directly. Cheers, -kls -- ======================================================== Kevin Smathers kevin.smathers@hp.com Hewlett-Packard kevin@ank.com Palo Alto Research Lab 1501 Page Mill Rd. 650-857-4477 work M/S 1135 650-852-8186 fax Palo Alto, CA 94304 510-247-1031 home ======================================================== use "Standard::Disclaimer"; carp("This message was printed on 100% recycled bits.");
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2003 10:30:34 UTC