W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2002

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

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 17:42:05 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F04A0705F@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Michael Mealling'" <michael@neonym.net>, Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
Cc: "'Jonathan Borden'" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>, "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>, "'Norman Walsh'" <Norman.Walsh@sun.com>, www-tag@w3.org


> > 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
> michael@neonym.net      |                              | 

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:54 UTC