- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 10:22:34 +0100
- To: Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com>
- Cc: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Leo Sauermann wrote: > The social practice of not domain stealing is here today and not 5 years > ago. I remember some discussions about domain stealing, people where not > happy about it, also in this list. > > [ very big snip ] > > so you aren't even allowed to change the meaning of your own URIs :-))) > don't try to change the meaning of other people's uris?! But but but ... meaning isn't like that ... take dc:creator, we can go and look at the definition, which took a lot of effort on the part of the DC community, and we can go and look how it is used; which may, in subtle ways, suggest different twists of meaning, particularly when used in certain contexts, that are not explicit in the definition. For example, a dc:creator triple on an OWL Test case description (in a Manifest file), indicates the name of a person who was responsible for first writing down the initial idea - often this was quite a rough sketch, and at least sometimes this was even in a different syntax from the actual test. I felt this was a legitimate use of dc:creator; but a different point of view would have made me dc:creator of many more of the tests for example for creating the first published version of the test (a job that I saw as editorial). I do not believe that DC legislates one way or the other on this issue (in fact they seem to try hard not to). The meaning of words in natural language drifts with usage; I see no reason to expect the Semantic Web to be immune from this phenomenon. I have sympathies on both sides of this discussion. Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2004 05:23:27 UTC