- From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@comcast.net>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 09:17:32 -0400
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
[Danny Ayers] > > >Manos Batsis wrote, > >> There is no ambiguity, just incomplete semantics. > > > >Incomplete semantics is one of the sources of ambiguity. Filling out > >the semantics to eliminate ambiguity involves specifying the context > >of use sufficiently to eliminate all but (at most) one candiate > >referent. > > I think the key may lie in Thomas' remark earlier about 'it only pushing it > up a level'. Up a level we have a lot more power. > > What if we consider the URI to represent a *set* then the assertions : > > A http://www.markbaker.ca/index.html has long hair > B http://www.markbaker.ca/index.html is hosted in Florida > > can be made 'in the wild', in that A & B refer to a different element in the > set http://www.markbaker.ca/index.html > > If we wish to reason with such statements, then locally we can pull out the > element of the set of interest, and give it a local unique identifier (if > necessary). I think that this is the old intention vs. extention dichotomy. Is a thing known by its definition or by its properties? In actual practice among people, both are usually in play. Cheers, Tom P
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 09:40:04 UTC