Re: Meaning of URIRefs

>I need to call it a day and week

Yep, me too.

>, but let me leave with one small set
>of questions for now:
>>  Well, it seems to me that there is a simple, clear story here.
>>  1. RDF is a logic (an assertional language) , and entailment has its
>>  usual meaning.
>>  2. Urirefs 'belong' to their owners, and the owner is only
>>  responsible for the sentences hse publishes. That is, owners are not
>>  responsible for their urirefs, but they are responsible for their
>>  triples (just like everyone else.)
>>  3. In general, its good advice to only believe things published by
>>  entities you trust; but it is not logically inconsistent to be either
>>  paranoid or gullible.
>>  The only special thing that needs to be said is that
>>  4. if you publish something which uses a uriref belonging to someone
>>  else,  then it is your responsibility to ensure that the meaning you
>>  intend it to have is consistent with the meaning its owner intends it
>>  to have, ie expressed in whatever assertions hse makes using it.
>So if animals says Cat and Dog are disjoint classes, and I say _:x is
>an animal:Cat and an animal:Dog, what happens?  What does my message
>mean?  Is my message false or in some way in error?

Each message has a clear meaning, and they clearly contradict one 
another (in OWL; I presume we have moved from RDF to OWL at this 
point). So, clearly, something is wrong here. Exactly what is wrong 
isnt entirely clear. On my criteria, you have made a mistake and if I 
draw a silly conclusion from this mess, eg that the Pope is made of 
green cheese, than it can be said to be your fault. However, I didn't 
derive it just from what you said, but rather from what you said and 
what animals said.

>If I just say that _:spot is an animals:Dog, and animals (the document
>at the URI) says that Dog is a subclass of Mammal, it in no way
>follows that _:spot is an animals:Mammal?   Maybe the URI part of the
>URIRef is a strong-hint for additional content to include?

Sure, strong-hint is fine, I guess. But look: suppose you in fact 
just said something sensible about _:x, say that it was a cat and 
also a Siamese, and suppose some other schmuk said that all Siamese 
were dogs. I now have a contradiction derived from three sources. 
There's nothing you can do to protect me from believing some nonsense 
written by someone else. So no matter what *you* say, *I* need to be 
always on my toes to make sure I don't just believe anything people 
say using other people's urirefs. For that matter, I need to be on my 
toes when reading what people say about their OWN urirefs; there is 
lots of silly stuff out there which was written by its original 
authors. There are even people who think that emailboxes are human 
beings, for example.

>If some other web document (not at the animals URI) says that
>animals:Dog is a subclass of animals:Tree (disjoint from
>animals:Mammals), does the reader have any basis for thinking that
>_:spot is more legitimately an animals:Mammal than an animals:Tree?

Strict answer: no. Realistic answer: maybe, because owners of urirefs 
are more likely to take some care with what they say using those 
urirefs. Bottom line: you, the RDF reader, have to decide who you 
trust. Caveat lector.

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell	

Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 18:34:37 UTC