RE: URIs: resources and contradictions was: Re: httpRange proposed text

> On Behalf Of Jonathan Borden
>
> Yes I would say that every time we use a single URI we refer 
> to the same resource, but perhaps in different contexts. The 
> meaning of a URI is the same as the meaning of the resource 
> it refers to.

We solve the problem of the one to many mapping between URIs and
Resource by axiomatising that such a relationship is never the case
(I'll accept that for now as being an internally consistent view in the
web, but observe it's trivially not true when we relate the world to the
web). Granted, what something means is often more relevant than what
something is. 

What is left ungrounded then is the meaning of a URI. This can be
grounded either by a model theoretic interpretation (RDF), the history
of representations (REST), or some other technique.

> A resource may have different meanings in 
> different contexts (e.g. as asserted by two different 
> individuals). 

It would be more consistent with your argument to say that a URI may
have different meanings in different contexts; this is by your and
others insistence that a URI point to one and only one thing
(irregardless of what a group of parties might think that URI actually
points to).

I'll also observe that this notion of context dependence disposes of
axiom 1. But so does the RDF Model Theory, which also disposes of 2a. By
dispose I mean they are downgraded in RDF from truths to requirements.

Under a setup where resource are synonymous with URIs, I see no point in
having resources, symbols and interpretations alone should be sufficient
for our computers. As Chris Lilley said about resources, they're tricky
to get a hold of; while I take issue with one aspect of Chris' analogy,
physicists do invent particles to explain formulae. In kind, we seem to
need resources only to explain the existence of URIs. Yet resources seem
more like phlogiston than neutrinos.  

I would also expect to alienate many on comers when we tell them, quite
literally, they don't know what they are talking about.

And my main objection is not that it is less right to make URIs and
resources synonymous, or that it is not aesthetically appealing to me,
but that it leaves something important unsaid. By not axiomatising
ambiguity we leave it a ghost in the system; perhaps by claiming that it
is not there (an untruth), or claiming that it is 'obvious'; as we all
know it's there it needs no further treatment. The benefits of certainty
are so many, it's hard to let it go. 

regards,
Bill de hÓra
..
Propylon
www.propylon.com

Received on Sunday, 4 August 2002 08:27:16 UTC