- From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
- Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 09:01:47 +0100
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- CC: ML RDF-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>
Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > >Sure a web page or an e-mail address IS NOT the corresponding person. > >Neither is its employee ID... > > No. Either can be used to identify a person. > http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Identity.html#Expressing > > >Though, could we prevent people using the dublin core properties this way : > > > ><rdf:Description about="http://www.somewhere.org/somedoc"> > > <dc:Creator rdf:resource="mailto:John@somewhere.org"/> > > <dc:Creator rdf:resource="http://www.somewhere.org/~Paul/"/> > > <dc:Creator rdf:resource="employee://somewhere.org/12345"/> > ></rdf:Description> > > > >I don't think so ! > > Yes we can, I hope! IMHO the above is a mess. Is this what dc expect to > happen? > > 0. We could define (if starting from zero) define dc:creator to have range > dc:person where > a person is the domain of properties dc:mailbox and sc:homepage and > dc:commonname. > That is the best solution. do it, and people will write things like <play:Person rdf:about="mailto:John@somewhere.org"/> <play:Person rdf:about="http://www.somewhere.org/~Paul/"> <play:Person rdf:about="employee://somewhere.org/12345"/> et voila ! The above dc:creator statements are valid. This is what makes RDF flexible enough to scale the web. > >URIs are ambiguous, yes, they have more than one interpretation level, yes. > > No, no. We should be clean or no reasoning from all this will be possible. > IMHO. My belief is that SOME reasoning will be possible, even if hard logic inference (with completeness and everything) will not. We won't prove theorems, no - but is there any universal truth among the web, anyway ? > >We can't prevent people from using URI with different interpretations, > >so we'll have to use the context to tackle with it. > > we agree to differ then. well, I meant, we sure can ENCOURAGE people to use strict structures, and if they do, RDF agents will be able to perform very efficient and powerful reasoning. but we can't rely on it - if navigator did rely only on HTML recommendation, 3/4 of the web would be unreadable! one eroneous fact in a strict logical system can make the entire system contradictory ; the web can not afford strict logic : its first axiom is "there is contradiction". I'm thinking about writing a paper on the subject. I'll post it on the list. Pierre-Antoine > >--- Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur > > Whatever is said in Latin sounds important. > > sed quid quid in RDF dictum sit, altum est. sure :D
Received on Friday, 3 March 2000 03:00:17 UTC