- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:19:22 -0500
- To: "Miles Sabin" <miles@mistral.co.uk>, "'www-tag'" <www-tag@w3.org>
Miles Sabin wrote: > Jonathan Borden wrote, ... > > > > visual-appearance-of(http://www.markbaker.ca) looks-like > > visual-appearance-of(http://www.joethomas.fr) and it works. > > This is a way of removing the appearance of ambiguity in the URI, I > grant you, but it's not the only one. Which is the "central node" > and which is the property? Couldn't we just as easily say that the > URIs identify the images and that Mark is the "attached property", > hence that, This approach uses URI(references) as terms in the domain of discourse. This approach presents a way for one to construct "sentences" but does not contrain what might be said. Whomever is making the statement, or selects the particular ontology, is the one who 'decides' what is the class and what is the property. > > FWIW this 'qua' construct can be formalized ... Kit Fine did some > work on it in the late 70s and Peter Simons more recently > (unfortunately I don't have any references handy). > Ok. One might formalise any number of approaches. The point being made _here_ is that there are formalisms which employ URIreferences as terms in the domain of discourse. Moreover there are communities which actively use URIs and URIreferences in this way. For example the WebOnt WG has ~50 members, which suggests that the community, especially if one adds members of the RDFCore WG, is _at the very least_ 50 people :-). Such usages ought be considered in answering the question "what does a URIreference identify?" Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 28 March 2002 09:22:27 UTC