Re: SKOS dodges the identity crisis?

Al et al.,
	While I think the characterization of the concept is good, as the
URIs do actually *are* a description of a concept. However, where the use 
value of a URI for a concept is because the concept itself, not a  
particular description of the concept, is denoted by the URI. The key 
issue in my mind here is interoperability - so you *can* of course use 
any URI to denote any concept or description of a concept you want in your 
RDF theoretically (I mean, I can make an RDF statement saying denotes the 
string "green cheese", and can create my own URI 
cheese which I say denotes "google"!) and you  can give them separate URIs
 - but what does that buy you? It seems that's what people want to know is 
that if I have URIA and you have URIB, does URIA denote the same thing as 
URIB - and feel free to replace URIB and URIA with the words "metadata 
about URIX". Henry and I's analysis believes a sort of "equivalence class" 
or statistical approximation of an equivalence (it's 80 percent likely URIA
denotes the same thing as URIB) created either by hand of via a search  
engine is the way to go, thus Web Proper Names.


 On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Miles, AJ 
(Alistair) wrote:

> Hi all,
> I did some more thinking about SKOS, and wrote up an idea at:
> I would very much like to know if you think this looks sound, workable,
> reasonable, viable, or not ... all thoughts welcomed :)
> We really have to get this sorted.
> Cheers,
> Al.
> ---
> Alistair Miles
> Research Associate
> CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> Building R1 Room 1.60
> Fermi Avenue
> Chilton
> Didcot
> Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
> United Kingdom
> Email:
> Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440


	Harry Halpin
	Informatics, University of Edinburgh 

Received on Thursday, 18 November 2004 20:22:22 UTC