- From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
- Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 23:24:01 +0100
- To: "'Jonathan Borden'" <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
> From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jonathan@openhealth.org] > > I have no idea why you conclude that "in the > RDF model., each URIref must be disambiguated"? > What does this mean and why do you say this? > Take a look at <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/RDF_MT_figure1.jpg>, particularly the text "IS assigns one thing to each name in the vocabulary". Why does IS exist if what you say is the case? > Named nodes (in RDF -- my use of the term "node" > is identical to RDF) are labelled/named by a single URIref. Yes. And this occurs through the IS mapping. It is not axiomatic in RDF that URIrefs name one resource. Consider: "1.3 Interpretations The following definition of an interpretation is couched in mathematical language, but what it amounts to intuitively is that an interpretation provides just enough information about a possible way the world might be - a 'possible world' - in order to fix the truth-value (true or false) of any ground RDF triple. It does this by specifying for each uriref, what it is supposed to be a name of; and also, if it is used to indicate a property, what values that property has for each thing in the universe. " Bill de hÓra -- Propylon www.propylon.com
Received on Friday, 20 September 2002 18:25:26 UTC