- From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 15:11:57 -0700
- To: <msabin@interx.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> > > Here's another analogy. If I show you a photograph of the Eiffel > > > Tower and ask you "What's that?", then I think that either of > > > these two answers would be acceptable, > > > * It's the Eiffel Tower. > > > * It's a photograph of the Eiffel Tower. > > > > This example doesn't apply. A URI is an *identifier*, a much more > > appropriate comparison would be with "a word". > > Which is exactly what I said. > The identifier here is "that" (supplemented with a gesture). > Nope, this is why I keep rejecting your position. URIs are intended to be first-class identifiers. URIs are the same as words. To say that all URIs have the same level as ambiguity as the word "that" is to say that all *words* have the ambiguity of the word "that". It's not a matter of right or wrong -- if I accepted your position that URIs are so ambiguous, and accepted that you need to disambiguate *all* URIs, then I could attack your disambiguation scheme the same way that you are attacking URIs. It is possible to create ambiguity in anything. The issue is pragmatism. If every conversation required everyone to disclaim every identifier, nobody would be able to communicate. The waves of word connotations that we surf are entirely capricious and arbitrary. Pointing out that they *are* arbitrary does not diminish their usefulness, and normally only brings pleasure to people like Noam Chomsky and Umberto Eco.
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 18:12:09 UTC