- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 18:32:39 +0100
- To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
At 09:52 AM 8/1/02 -0500, Aaron Swartz wrote: >>>>>Again, you are confusing the ability for a web page to identify a >>>>>donkey with the requirement that it does. I would argue that the web >>>>>page only identifies the donkey if one was careful to state that it >>>>>did. An example of such a page is: http://logicerror.com/myWeavingTheWeb >>>>So what, sir, is the algorithm for determining that no one had >>>>carefully stated tha a web page was a donkey? >>>Visiting the page and reading through it. As I said, as we move into the >>>Semantic Web we'll need RDF properties and HTTP headers to provide this >>>information in a machine-processable way, but that's true about many >>>things. I don't see how that's a deal-breaker. >>Maybe that's the killer here? If you can only determine the meaning of >>some RDF when online and able to visit the page, that greatly reduces the >>utility of RDF, IMO. > >Well, you can obviously determine the meaning by reading trusted RDF >files. If it says it's a foaf:Person it's a good bet the URL doesn't >identify a document. If you had asked me what the method is for finding >out if a URL is a web page about a baseball team, I would have suggested >something similar (visit the page and see) but this does not preclude RDF >descriptions of such things! (nor does it mean we must assume all HTTP >URLs identify web pages about baseball teams, just to be safe) Well, actually, I was questioning the case that trusted RDF files may not be accessible. (Bill dealt with that point in his response.) >> <http://example.org/myCar> ex:colour ex:Red . >>Suppose that I already know that ex:colour and ex:Red are to be >>interpreted as describing the colour of the subject resource in the way >>that we (as English speaking people) might expect. Am I to conclude >>that: the web page at <http://example.org/myCar> is substantially red? > >Well, you probably know that the domain of ex:coulour is abstractThings so >myCar must be an abstract thing and you wouldn't need to dereference the >page. If someone else says something which leads you to believe it's a >webPage then you have a contradiction and you resolve it the way you >normally do: see who you trust more, check the page, etc. Here I'm thinking of precisely the case that I don't know that about the domain of ex:colour. And it seems like the kind of property that could apply to a document resource AND the thing it describes. I'm not sure that I want to deal with the kind of complexities you seem to embrace in what is (to me) a baseline system for describing stuff. I think it's most useful to take a view that any URI identifies a single concept. (Now different folks may have different ideas about what that concept is, but I think that's a kind of problem to deal with later when some basic mechanisms are bedded in.) #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2002 13:27:11 UTC