- From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:31:56 +0100
- To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > -----Original Message----- > From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Miles Sabin > Sent: 24 April 2002 13:02 > To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org > Subject: RE: Documents, Cars, Hills, and Valleys > > > Bill de hÓra wrote, > > Assuming a URI identifies one resource is not a weak > > assumption; assuming we'll all agree which resource is very > > weak. > > I'm not sure I understand the _practical_ significance of that > distinction. If I want to merge two graphs of RDF assertions bound to a URI, I would like to know that the URI is being used for the same resource before I let an engine process the new graph and make further inferences. RDF makes assertions about resources, such as they are, not URIs. > And tho' I'd agree that it's reasonable to assume that any use of > a URI is _intended_ to identify a unique resource, in the > presence of multiple uses and multiple intentions the net > result is that there is no one resource which can be taken as > the referent ... IOW, the bare URI is ambiguous. Yes. We'd need a theory of reference or pointing, or symbol grounding, no? Or we could just impose order and have a semantic web of Newspeak. Another option is to and allow code to reason statistically or negotiate term grounding about whether a URI is being used to refer to the same thing. Dan Brickley has talked about the social compact aspects of URIs before, but the only way I can conceive of running such common sense though a computer is statistically or probabilistically. Bill de hÓra -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 7.0.4 iQA/AwUBPMaluuaWiFwg2CH4EQIF1ACg6rISNJsDU8ZFlG9huWx/8tSvgykAn2ED k/56fMofOjmoRM6riV7Zn5sw =nCdB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 08:38:48 UTC