- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:19:57 -0400
- To: "pat hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>, "Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
Graham Klyne wrote: > > At 15:32 27/07/03 -0500, pat hayes wrote: > >>Claiming that the URI cannot > >>identify both the conceptual mapping and the real thing outside > >>the information system is equivalent to claiming that your > >>social security number cannot be used to identify anything other > >>than your social security account. > > > >OK, point taken: so the URI can be ambiguous. I agree names can be > >ambiguous in this sense; they can have more than one possible > >meaning/referent. ... > > Is this really true? If a social security number "identifies" a social > security account (and nothing else), it can still be used to make reference > to a person It depends on how you define "ambiguity". I see this as relating a URI to a set of possible interpretations -- as you know this is pretty fundamental to the way RDF and OWL are currently defined. Jonathan
Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 09:20:06 UTC