- From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
- Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 11:55:11 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- CC: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, miles@milessabin.com, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net> >>In particular, I think the first makes the semantic web slightly >>crocked from an engineeering perspective - well and good to for the >>RDF MT to say that all URIs must have one denotation in the graph, > > > The RDF semantics (model theory) doesn't say this at all. As in most model > theories, the denotation of a name (URI reference) is only fixed in an > interpretation, and can differ between interpretations. Yes, good catch. >>well and good for some to say URIs are owned therefore their >>denotations are owned thanks to some axiom or other. But there is a >>whole layer of infrastructure to be put into place to assign >>interpretations to URIs before safely merging graphs, if Miles is >>correct. > > > Not only a whole layer of infrastructure, but a whole theory of > representation to be added to the Semantic Web architecture. Better catch ;) Bill de hÓra
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2003 05:56:19 UTC