RE: My action item on Moby Dec, issue 14, etc


> > Nonetheless if RDF held an 1-1 mappings as an axiomatic, the MT
> > wouldn't require the IS mapping. 
> Ok, here's the issue: how can you not deductively conclude that mappings
> are 1:1 exclusive given the definition of a resource as that thing that
> is named by a URI?

That a URI maps to a single resource seems a reasonable conclusion -
actually it seems more like a definition or an axiom. That a resource is
mapped from a single URI... I'm not sure the is so clear. The mapping may be
N:1 (URI->Resource).
> > I suppose one could argue that IS is a
> > redundant artefact from model theoretic semantics in the large, or the
> > Web architecture provides IS 'for free' due to authoritative naming;
> > neither seems an entirely satisfactory way to show the seamntic and the
> > actual Web tee up axiomatically.
> And that may mean you need some layer in between RDF and URIs 
> that makes it satisfactory. URIs only give you a unique string denoting 
> one and only one Resource. They don't give you anything else. Not 
> equivalence, meaning, resolvability, persistence, useability, available 
> representations, etc...
> Nothing....
> -MM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> Michael Mealling	|      Vote Libertarian!       | urn:pin:1
>      |                              |


Received on Friday, 20 September 2002 12:42:42 UTC